Whistleblower

[beezzz]

WITNESS INTIMIDATION? Schiff pressed Volker to say Ukraine felt pressure from Trump.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...olker-to-say-ukraine-felt-pressure-from-trump

In a secret interview, Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the House Democratic effort to impeach President Trump, pressed former U.S. special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker to testify that Ukrainian officials felt pressured to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as a result of Trump withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

Volker denied that was the case, noting that Ukrainian leaders did not even know the aid was being withheld, and that they believed their relationship with the United States was moving along satisfactorily, without them having done anything Trump mentioned in his notorious July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

When Volker repeatedly declined to agree to Schiff’s characterization of events, Schiff said, “Ambassador, you’re making this much more complicated than it has to be.”

 

[RobDownSouth]

Breaking: Schiff Pressed Volker To Say Ukraine Felt Pressure From Trump




Wow. How improper is this? If he’s trying to shape his testimony, he’s potentially suborning perjury. Why is he having a secret interview with him at all? That’s tainting the witness and now Schiff really should recuse himself because he’s shown he can’t conduct an impartial investigation and has become a part of it.

Oh look, a complete copypasta article from Weaselzippers.us, unattributed of course. A clear cut TOS violation, but hey, it's Bezz, right?

Weaselzippers summarizes long conservative rants into a paragraph or less for intellectually challenged RWCJers.

 

[beezzz]

attack me

attack the source

IGNORE THE ISSUE

 

[HisArpy]

attack me

attack the source

IGNORE THE ISSUE

It's because he believes that "we're all ganging up on him."

 

[HisArpy]

^^^^^^BroCavalry to teh rescue!

Poor lil' rubbery, soooo misunderstood...

 

[beezzz]

Oh look, a complete copypasta article from Weaselzippers.us, unattributed of course. A clear cut TOS violation, but hey, it's Bezz, right?

Weaselzippers summarizes long conservative rants into a paragraph or less for intellectually challenged RWCJers.

here is the link

for teh 2nd time

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Break...+Felt+Pressure+From+Trump&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

 

[Aglaopheme]

Oh look, a complete copypasta article from Weaselzippers.us, unattributed of course. A clear cut TOS violation, but hey, it's Bezz, right?

Weaselzippers summarizes long conservative rants into a paragraph or less for intellectually challenged RWCJers.

By asking him if and when it transpired?

 

[bigsly]

Breaking: Schiff Pressed Volker To Say Ukraine Felt Pressure From Trump




Wow. How improper is this? If he’s trying to shape his testimony, he’s potentially suborning perjury. Why is he having a secret interview with him at all? That’s tainting the witness and now Schiff really should recuse himself because he’s shown he can’t conduct an impartial investigation and has become a part of it.

You understand a Republican Representative also questioned Volker during the same "secret" interview, right?

 

[Rightguide]

So when will the whistleblower testify? Oh wait, the Whistleblower wrote a memo saying, it was “standard practice” for the “White House situation room to produce a word-for-word transcript that memorializes the call.” Of course when he said this he didn't expect the President to release the transcript to the public. The memo goes on to say the transcript was being, “treated very sensitively.” It also included the statement, “The President did not raise security assistance” during the call.

 

[Aglaopheme]

You understand a Republican Representative also questioned Volker during the same "secret" interview, right?

I honestly think some people don’t get that. I mean that is why Schiff felt the need to send out his letter.

 

[Aglaopheme]

The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

 

[zipman]

The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

though /T͟Hō/

conjunction
despite the fact that; although.
"though they were speaking in undertones, Philip could hear them"
adverb
however (indicating that a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously).
"I was hunting for work. Jobs were scarce though"

 

[Rightguide]

I honestly think some people don’t get that. I mean that is why Schiff felt the need to send out his letter.

Schiff's only need is to fuel his phony impeachment investigation.

 

[bigsly]

I try objectively to look at what U.S. statues that have been violated according to whistleblower-on-down info that's filtered through every partisan sift, including so much of "the press" the socialist/progressive/Democrat majority is clearly favored by.

I totally understand the unarguable political partisan whistleblower fully disagrees with how Trump is running foreign policy, as has also been the clear case according to "secret" testimony from the other unarguably anti-Trumpers, leaked by the clearly anti-Trump socialist/progressive/Democrat House majority who are unilaterally steering this entire "impeachment" thing.

I get it. I really do: socialists/progressives/Democrat clearly don't like the ways Trumps does stuff - they've been talking about impeaching him even before he won the statist/conservative/Republican nomination. They've said the Mueller report contained plenty of "evidence" to impeach him - but they didn't. They say all this latest info doubly serves as enough "evidence" to impeach him - but they don't.

As I continue to at least try to consider ALL the info I can on this clearly partisan (and seemingly perpetual) "impeachment" charade, I don't like the smell of a lot of it (just like I've never liked the smell of Trump), either. But I do not see any clear violations of U.S. statue(s), as the socialist/progressive/Democrat partisan side says there clearly is.

So, why not vote to actually begin a traditional impeachment process; you know, the way impeachment has always been constitutionally handled in America? That, all by itself, would more stamp OBJECTIVENESS all over a serious process the framer's clearly desired to be held in FULL PUBLIC VIEW. I have no problem thinking the socialist/progressive/Democrat majority would easily win that vote.

The socialsit/progressive/Democrat partisan side insists there's already plenty of impeachable "evidence"; how's just more behind closed doors, closed to the public and press, clearly partisan anti-Trumper "testimony" going to apply any less OBJECTIVELY? Wouldn't a proverbial "smoking gun" be more likely to appear in a more OBJECTIVE impeachment trial, in which ALL sides can be freely heard by the public and the press?

Public polls seem to favor impeachment and even removal, basically right along the clear partisan lines of - you guessed it - the results of the 2016 presidential election itself. Half of the public is on board, the socialist/progressive/Democrat House majority is obviously on board, so why doesn't America just quit all the clearly partisan, pussyfooting bullshit and get down to constitutionally impeaching President Donald Trump?

Or, has can't walk like you talkitis already crippled OBJECTIVENESS completely out of the American character?

 

[Rightguide]

I try objectively to look at what U.S. statues that have been violated according to whistleblower-on-down info that's filtered through every partisan sift, including so much of "the press" the socialist/progressive/Democrat majority is clearly favored by.

I totally understand the unarguable political partisan whistleblower fully disagrees with how Trump is running foreign policy, as has also been the clear case according to "secret" testimony from the other unarguably anti-Trumpers, leaked by the clearly anti-Trump socialist/progressive/Democrat House majority who are unilaterally steering this entire "impeachment" thing.

I get it. I really do: socialists/progressives/Democrat clearly don't like the ways Trumps does stuff - they've been talking about impeaching him even before he won the statist/conservative/Republican nomination. They've said the Mueller report contained plenty of "evidence" to impeach him - but they didn't. They say all this latest info doubly serves as enough "evidence" to impeach him - but they don't.

As I continue to at least try to consider ALL the info I can on this clearly partisan (and seemingly perpetual) "impeachment" charade, I don't like the smell of a lot of it (just like I've never liked the smell of Trump), either. But I do not see any clear violations of U.S. statue(s), as the socialist/progressive/Democrat partisan side says there clearly is.

So, why not vote to actually begin a traditional impeachment process; you know, the way impeachment has always been constitutionally handled in America? That, all by itself, would more stamp OBJECTIVENESS all over a serious process the framer's clearly desired to be held in FULL PUBLIC VIEW. I have no problem thinking the socialist/progressive/Democrat majority would easily win that vote.

The socialsit/progressive/Democrat partisan side insists there's already plenty of impeachable "evidence"; how's just more behind closed doors, closed to the public and press, clearly partisan anti-Trumper "testimony" going to apply any less OBJECTIVELY? Wouldn't a proverbial "smoking gun" be more likely to appear in a more OBJECTIVE impeachment trial, in which ALL sides can be freely heard by the public and the press?

Public polls seem to favor impeachment and even removal, basically right along the clear partisan lines of - you guessed it - the results of the 2016 presidential election itself. Half of the public is on board, the socialist/progressive/Democrat House majority is obviously on board, so why doesn't America just quit all the clearly partisan, pussyfooting bullshit and get down to constitutionally impeaching President Donald Trump?

Or, has can't walk like you talkitis already crippled OBJECTIVENESS completely out of the American character?

Because he has not broken the law and a trial grounded in a visceral hatred for the President will not gather a two thirds vote in the Senate.

 

[icanhelp1]

WITNESS INTIMIDATION? Schiff pressed Volker to say Ukraine felt pressure from Trump.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...olker-to-say-ukraine-felt-pressure-from-trump

I OBJECT YOUR HONOR, PROSECUTION LEADING THE WITNESS!!

 

[Rightguide]

I OBJECT YOUR HONOR, PROSECUTION LEADING THE WITNESS!!

This is a Star Chamber, where a defense attorney isn't allowed.

 

[beezzz]

You understand a Republican Representative also questioned Volker during the same "secret" interview, right?

yes,

did any of em PRESS the guy to alter his feelings and statements

 

[zipman]

(CNN)US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland was directed by President Donald Trump to work with Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine, he told Congress on Thursday, and was left with a choice: Abandon efforts to bolster a key strategic alliance or work to satisfy the demands of the President's personal lawyer.

Sondland said he wasn't aware until "much later" that Giuliani's agenda might have included an effort to "prompt the Ukrainians" to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter and to involve the Ukrainians in the President's campaign, according to his opening statement, which was obtained by CNN in advance of the deposition.

Sondland's revealing testimony is a clear break with Trump over Giuliani — he said he was "disappointed" that Trump wouldn't commit to a meeting sought by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky until they spoke with Giuliani, who was pursuing an investigation into Biden, a potential political rival in Trump's reelection campaign. And the ambassador's testimony showcases how Trump put on hold an effort to strengthen relations with Ukraine until top US officials were in contact with his personal attorney.

 

[icanhelp1]

This is a Star Chamber, where a defense attorney isn't allowed.

Well I guess if you can't get a conviction in a court of law then by all means do it behind closed doors!




NOW I GET IT!!!

 

[beezzz]

(CNN)US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland was directed by President Donald Trump to work with Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine, he told Congress on Thursday, and was left with a choice: Abandon efforts to bolster a key strategic alliance or work to satisfy the demands of the President's personal lawyer.

Sondland said he wasn't aware until "much later" that Giuliani's agenda might have included an effort to "prompt the Ukrainians" to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter and to involve the Ukrainians in the President's campaign, according to his opening statement, which was obtained by CNN in advance of the deposition.

Sondland's revealing testimony is a clear break with Trump over Giuliani — he said he was "disappointed" that Trump wouldn't commit to a meeting sought by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky until they spoke with Giuliani, who was pursuing an investigation into Biden, a potential political rival in Trump's reelection campaign. And the ambassador's testimony showcases how Trump put on hold an effort to strengthen relations with Ukraine until top US officials were in contact with his personal attorney.

so what?

 

[beezzz]

No More Pretense: Journalists, Dems Use Identical Talking Points on Impeachment (Video).


https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...journalists-dems-use-identical-talking-points

 

[beezzz]

You understand a Republican Representative also questioned Volker during the same "secret" interview, right?

what does THIS have to do with anything?

 

[Rightguide]

No More Pretense: Journalists, Dems Use Identical Talking Points on Impeachment (Video).


https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...journalists-dems-use-identical-talking-points

Zucker expose' proves they are one and the same.

 

[bigsly]

yes,

did any of em PRESS the guy to alter his feelings and statements

Like you expect crooked prosecutor Sackofschiff to act any differently? That's not news. News would be him conducting the interview in an objective, honest, forthright manner. My point was to your quoting "the secret interview" crap, because, obviously, it wasn't a "secret interview". Unless you actually fantasize any instance that includes Congresscritters and their staffs - minimum - possibly keeping"secret" anything. You simply and maliciously used "secret" to try to tilt slant more to your bias.

You do EXACTLY what you love to rip Sackofschiff a new butthole for. God's probably going to arrange for you and Sackofschiff to share a 10x12 in hell for eternity.

Remember: don't drop the soap!