Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[rogue06]

And yet what you provide is indications at best. Why don't you just prove that they don't match up? It would be so much easier. Of course not as easy as it is to just simply claim they don't match up.

A simple reading of the transcript of the call suffices. Where was the threats that the whistleblower claimed were made? Where is the promised quid pro quo agreement that was made? What about the story that one of Zelensky's aides had told folks that Trump had said he needed to know where Zelensky stood wrt to Biden before he'd even meet with him. Totally debunked. The person in question wasn't even working with Zelensky at the time of the call and wouldn't have any knowledge of it. There are many factors like these that are not standing up to scrutiny.

[rogue06]

Also...

Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the whistleblower process. Fleitz says the Ukraine call whistleblower is likely driven by political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing it.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...-schiff-staff/

Been hearing a little about this. The language used in the complaint appears to be from someone with a great deal of legal knowledge and experience like comments on how what portions could be released -- what is classified and not classified -- and how to legally defend the decision to do so. This is not the sort of thing that typically comes from analysts. Suspicion is leaning toward Schiff's staff helping with the complaint being written since there is evidence that Schiff was already referencing the report before it was supposed to have been written.

As this all unfolds we'll see if any of this is true or not.

[rogue06]

Easy way to solve this:

Was >$300 million in military aid to Ukraine withheld along what we'd consider normal channels? Like, there's a clear rationale at State Dept, clear memos and directions at OMB to resolve whatever is preventing the funding from being delivered? Did State/OMB officials know what's going on?

Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials are now on record saying they were not aware that there any sort of delay was put on the aid. Now I don't know about you but for most folks it is really difficult to strongarm someone into doing something if they are totally unaware that such an effort is even taking place.

[Mountain Man]

The sound of mm's big conspiracy cracking and crumbling ...

Jim

The sound of Jim throwing an ad hominem fallacy against the wall to see if it sticks because he can't actually address the point made.

[Mountain Man]

Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials are now on record saying they were not aware that there any sort of delay was put on the aid. Now I don't know about you but for most folks it is really difficult to strongarm someone into doing something if they are totally unaware that such an effort is even taking place.

[liberal conspiracy mode]

Yeah, but that's totally what you would expect a victim to say! Would you really expect someone who had been extorted by a mob boss to go on record to admit they had been extorted? Zelensky's denial and other wanting evidence is all the proof we need that Trump is guilty!

[/liberal conspiracy mode]

[rogue06]

Anyone else noticing the not so subtle shift on the left away from wanting folks to see the transcript to now hardly mentioning it and instead focusing nearly all their efforts on the "whistleblower's" complaint instead?

Yet another indication that the actual conversation just doesn't match up to what they claim was said.

It's kind of like someone telling you not to actually watch a sporting event but instead rely on the analysis of it that they'll provide.

[Sam]

Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials are now on record saying they were not aware that there any sort of delay was put on the aid. Now I don't know about you but for most folks it is really difficult to strongarm someone into doing something if they are totally unaware that such an effort is even taking place.

No, I don't believe that's accurate. What Zelensky has said -- and no one would expect him to say otherwise -- is that he wasn't pressured during Trump's call. That's the smart diplomatic statement to make now. But Senator Murphy has already recalled that Zelensky was explicitly aware of the stalled aid. Senator Ron Johnson was, I believe, also part of that discussion.

And the timeline here doesn't even really need to be precise: Giuliani had been trying to goad Ukrainian officials into investigating Biden for some time. He had talked explicitly with 2-3 lead prosecutors, only to have to start again when they were sacked. The Zelensky administration was aware that Trump wanted Biden investigated. Whether Zelensky knew that aid was being withheld shortly before or shortly after the call is not particularly relevant: he either did or [i]would/i] know aid was being withheld and would understand the nature of the "favor" he could provide to get that aid moving.

--Sam

[Sam]

Anyone else noticing the not so subtle shift on the left away from wanting folks to see the transcript to now hardly mentioning it and instead focusing nearly all their efforts on the "whistleblower's" complaint instead?

Yet another indication that the actual conversation just doesn't match up to what they claim was said.

It's kind of like someone telling you not to actually watch a sporting event but instead rely on the analysis of it that they'll provide.

You need to broaden your exposure to "the left". From the first day, people on "the left", from David Frum to Brian Beutler, were saying that the transcript/notes were wholly insufficient, that the complaint itself was necessary. Partly because the complaint, not the transcript, is what the DNI is legally required to submit to Congress and partly because the Trump administration has already, numerous times, altered or truncated memos/statements/videos to change their meaning.

--Sam

[Sam]

Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials are now on record saying they were not aware that there any sort of delay was put on the aid. Now I don't know about you but for most folks it is really difficult to strongarm someone into doing something if they are totally unaware that such an effort is even taking place.

And I'll add:

Whatever Zelensky knew at the time is irrelevant to the point I made: was there a clear and documented rationale for withholding aid, one that confirms the contemporaneous rationales provided to Congress by the administration? Were they telling the truth -- in which case we'd be able to follow the chain of action through the agencies -- or were they lying and no such rationale existed?

That's a question with a fairly clear investigative pathway, one that doesn't rely on trying to figure out when the Ukrainian government was made aware that the aid package had stalled (though, assuming they were interested in the funding and could read US news, would've been well before September even without talking to the administration or Giuliani).

--Sam

[Sam]

There is obviously a significant difference between someone who possesses "indirect evidence", and someone like this whistleblower dealing in idle rumors and secondhand-at-best hearsay. Why else would they need to change the rules to explicitly allow "heard from others" as a legitimate source of a complaint?

One respondent to the Twitter thread you linked to shrewdly asks:

"Would indirect evidence include verbal hearsay of not strictly fact, but whatever fact that was accompanied by personal conjecture in regard to motivation?"

Like I said, if you don't smell a coordinated setup then you're naive -- or possibly willfully ignorant.

<Taps glass again>

Listen to the lawyers, not trash sites

[oxmixmudd]

The sound of Jim throwing an ad hominem fallacy against the wall to see if it sticks because he can't actually address the point made.

The point you made was that the form was newly modified to accommodate this event. It wasn't

Jim

[mikewhitney]

I imagine it will be quite more focused on documentary evidence and direct testimony by State and OMB officials.

I would hope your imagination would eventually track with reality a bit better. We already have a 2 year history of the type of investigation the Dems like to do.

[Sam]

I would hope your imagination would eventually track with reality a bit better. We already have a 2 year history of the type of investigation the Dems like to do.

Democrats have controlled the House for less than a year.

--Sam

[mikewhitney]

Democrats have controlled the House for less than a year.

--Sam

It has been a long year ... going on since Reagan and Carter. The typical Republican subjects decisions primarily to appeal to (or appease) the Democrats.

So I am talking about 'control' not just numbers. Don't you know that Trump was elected to overcome all these years of America falling into the pit?

[JimL]

It has been a long year ... going on since Reagan and Carter. The typical Republican subjects decisions primarily to appeal to (or appease) the Democrats.

So I am talking about 'control' not just numbers. Don't you know that Trump was elected to overcome all these years of America falling into the pit?

Hey, with logic like that you can't lose mike, at least not in your own mind.