Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[JimL]

I can't imagine what it's like for you to try to get through each day through the fog of delusion.

There would be no oversight had the democrats not won the House, and your beloved treasonous dictator would have been free to do Russia's bidding as Putin intended him to do. He is doing his best to undermine our democratic Institutions and democracy itself under the circumstances, the circumstances being a democratic House, but you can thank your god for the blue wave and the democrats later, after you are freed from the false narrative fed into the porches of your ears.

[Teallaura]

There was a quid pro quo infered, and anyone with half a brain can see that in the wording of the text. There is also the common sense understanding that Trump didn't just wake up one day and think, hmmm, I think I'll look into this already debunked Hunter Biden thing from years ago just for the heck of it.

Jim, you mean 'imply. You (general) can't 'infer' quid pro quo - or anything else - and have a criminal charge.

The Ukrainians deny being pressured - in affidavit!

And the press coverage was what alerted the White House to the issue with Biden's son.

It's the whistleblower law, Tea, whistleblowers aren't named for good reason. And second hand info has nothing to do with it since the evidence is the transcript itself not the who blew the whistle on it.

It's Constitutional law 101 - the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to face one's accuser. The whistleblower laws cannot override that nor do they negate it.

You already said that.

No, I said there were no named accusers in the complaint. Beyond that, there's no one saying "I witnessed X" or " i was intimidated by soandso" - THAT'S a very bad thing at this stage.

I don't know what you mean to say by this. If it's just an assertion that it's not an impeachable offense, that's up to Congress to decide, and they already have decided.

The evidence in affidavit supports Trump - all the sworn statements by principals are in support of Trump's side. I wasn't arguing about 'impeachable' (isn't and the House hasn't even brought articles - the Senate hasn't done anything at all - so no, Congress didn't decide anything of the sort*) - I'm telling you there is next to no admissible evidence and what there is supports Trump.




*It's the House's, not Congress' decision and it has not been made. Well, sorta - the Senate could take issue with the articles at trial.

[RumTumTugger]

Oh, his guilt, his collusion, his abuse of power, his obstruction of Congress, it's all substantiated alright, but you'll find that out soon enough RTT, he's going to be impeached, and he's going to be found guilty, if not by the cowardly, unprincipled Republican Senate, then by the people. I suspect he might flee to Russia before the state courts get their hands on him after his ouster. But you're beloved dictator is done for and the crew and hostages are abandoning the fast sinking ship. You'll see, you'll see, don't worry RTT you will see.

If it has been substantiated you would have more then just the assertions your leftist handlers give you to repeat JimL you'd be showing it. Where is the proof? Just repeating that it has been been substantiated and his guilt is proven isn't proof it is assertion, until you cite your sources with the proof you have nothing.

[Teallaura]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40038[/ATTACH]

And now even after reading the transcript and seeing how the whistleblower's complaint is full of factual errors, instead of backing off they've decide to double even triple down.

In other news, impeachment may become a fundraising fad - it's doing wonders for Trump thus far...

[Bill the Cat]

There was a quid pro quo inferred...

"Inferred" would never stand up under a court of law.

[firstfloor]

[JimL]

Jim, you mean 'imply. You (general) can't 'infer' quid pro quo - or anything else - and have a criminal charge.

The Ukrainians deny being pressured - in affidavit!

Of course the Ukrainians are going to deny being pressured, what would you expect them to do? Trump is the President whether they like it or not.

And the press coverage was what alerted the White House to the issue with Biden's son.

Now of course you just made that up. That was news a long long time ago. Trump didn't just wake up one morning and read it in the newspaper or see it on TV. This was a political plan to try and take out a political rival.

It's Constitutional law 101 - the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to face one's accuser. The whistleblower laws cannot override that nor do they negate it.

So is the right to a court trial, but not for the President. Impeachment is a political process.

No, I said there were no named accusers in the complaint. Beyond that, there's no one saying "I witnessed X" or " i was intimidated by soandso" - THAT'S a very bad thing at this stage.

Doesn't matter, the transcript is the evidence of wrongdoing in and of itself. In other words the evidence, trumps own words, is the accuser.

The evidence in affidavit supports Trump - all the sworn statements by principals are in support of Trump's side. I wasn't arguing about 'impeachable' (isn't and the House hasn't even brought articles - the Senate hasn't done anything at all - so no, Congress didn't decide anything of the sort*) - I'm telling you there is next to no admissible evidence and what there is supports Trump.

There is no affidavit or sworn statements that can refute the factual evidence of Trumps own words on tape, so I have no idea what you are talking about here.

*It's the House's, not Congress' decision and it has not been made. Well, sorta - the Senate could take issue with the articles at trial.

Right the House is going to impeach, and Moscow Mitch just came out and said that he has no choice but to try the case if the House follows through.

[Terraceth]

Jim, you mean 'imply. You (general) can't 'infer' quid pro quo - or anything else - and have a criminal charge.

Jillian was her name
She was sweeter than aspartame
Her kisses reconfigured my DNA
And after that I never was the same
And I loved her even more
Than Marlon Brando loved souffle
She was gorgeous, she was charming
Yeah, she was perfect in every way
Except she was always using the word "infer"
When she obviously meant "imply"
And I know some guys would put up with that kind of thing
But frankly, I can't imagine why

And I told her, I said
"Hey! Are we playing horseshoes, honey?
No, I don't think we are!
You're close! (Close!)
But no cigar!"

[Tassman]

"Inferred" would never stand up under a court of law.

What WILL stand up in the Impeachment is that the US president solicited help from a foreign country to investigate a potential 2020 political rival, whilst withholding desperately needed military aid to that country. Aid which had already been approved by Congress. It certainly seems like a quid pro quo was implied: You want your aid? Help me dig up dirt on my 2020 political rival.

[Mountain Man]

Whoops... seems the "whistleblower" might have broken the law by speaking to Shifty Adam Schiff before filling a report with the inspector general!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...nel-before-ig/

[Mountain Man]

Hmmmmm!

It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative Michael Barry to file as a formal IC complaint. This process is almost identical to the Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the 2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.

This series of events is exactly what former CIA Analyst Fred Fleiz said last week. Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the whistleblower process. Fleitz said last week 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...-construction/

[Mountain Man]

Okay, this is hilarious...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...tes-u-s-media/

[oxmixmudd]

Whoops... seems the "whistleblower" might have broken the law by speaking to Shifty Adam Schiff before filling a report with the inspector general!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...nel-before-ig/

Anything to make sure the truth is covered up, right MM?

[oxmixmudd]

What WILL stand up in the Impeachment is that the US president solicited help from a foreign country to investigate a potential 2020 political rival, whilst withholding desperately needed military aid to that country. Aid which had already been approved by Congress. It certainly seems like a quid pro quo was implied: You want your aid? Help me dig up dirt on my 2020 political rival.

That would it seems should be obvious. That there is a large contingent here and in the country that can't quite see that is truly a fascinating, though in many ways scary, thing.

[Mountain Man]

Anything to make sure the truth is covered up, right MM?

Says the conspiracy nut who insists that President Zelinsky just has to be lying because he refuted the liberal narrative.

The fact that the guy went to Schiff first to help him write his complaint, and the fact that the complaint got significant details wrong, proves that this wasn't a legitimate "whistleblower" operation but a coordinated political hit job.

But since this doesn't fit your narrative, I'm sure you'll breezily dismiss it.