Whistleblower identified

[RumTumTugger]

That is where the evidence leads Rum - but I can't make you accept it. It is what it is. I have outlined some of that evidence in other posts, perhaps in another thread, and I can outline it again if you really need to see it. however I certainly am not going to be like most Trump followers and just say only what Trump wants to hear, nor will I give it a bunch of spin like we see on the conservative rags.

Yes do outline it again if you have actual evidence that there was pressure put on President Zelinsky even though he said there wasn't and that Trump did indeed base America's aiding Ukraine on digging up dirt about Biden then you should be able to show it and i'm all ears. but be forwarned I will not accept just your opinion he was lying to make sure he would be able to keep good relations with the current leader as true evidence that is handwaving you have to prove he lied.

The Ball is in your court i wait to see if you do indeed the evidence you say you do. and if you use the actual phone transcript(which will be a plus to me) please give me the quote from the transcript not just your spin on what was said.

[Cow Poke]

It appears at least these two figured that if they went along with the Schiff circus that there would be two more House seats in Republican control come 2020.

And that's why it matters, I think - because a number of the "pickups" in the House were Democrats who ran as moderates wanting to focus on "getting things done", and not aggressively prosecuting impeachment.

[oxmixmudd]

Only true when you discount reality in favor of a cherished narrative.

Well - now you know why the historical use of 'fake news' is so effective. You will not accept that actual reporting of the actual data because of it source, which has been labeled 'untrue' by your faction. Just like YEC's will not checkout or try to understand Main Stream Science. They just believe what they hear from AIG or ICR.

Now we can make tit for tat equivalences all day long - but the proof is in the actual data and it's correspondence to reality.

So my next statement is a reach out to everyone on both sides of these issues on this web site who actually cares what the truth is:

HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH AND WHO IS LYING.

[rogue06]

It isn't only Zelinsky but other people in his administration that say there was no pressure. So your a mind reader now? everyone is lying but Adam(I have proof of Russian conspiracy) Schiff who is a proven liar.?

We do not convict people without evidence give me your evidence as in a written letter, another phone call, etc that Zelinsky is lying unless you have actual evidence then you apparently are pretending you read minds.

Schiff got caught with his pants down big time claiming he had no contact with the "whistleblower" prior to his releasing the complaint when he essentially walked him through the process of filing the complaint so that it could be filed. IIRC the WaPo gave him 4 Pinocchios (that's their highest level of lying and they typically will only give it to a major Democrat once maybe twice a year*) for that whopper.








* may be a slight exaggeration but it might also be pretty darn close to accurate

[Cow Poke]

It appears at least these two figured that if they went along with the Schiff circus that there would be two more House seats in Republican control come 2020.

OK, this is where I saw....

Impeachment Vote Will Cost These Dems Their Seats



...and more.

[rogue06]

OK, this is where I saw....

Impeachment Vote Will Cost These Dems Their Seats



...and more.

IIRC the two the crossed the party line were from New Jersey and Minnesota.

Too lazy to look but does the article factor in the numerous Republican retirements into their estimates, since that means the Republicans might be playing defensively in many areas that they wouldn't have been otherwise.

[Watermelon]

Yes, I'm aware that certain parties are twisting Mulvaney's testimony in their desperate effort to "get" Trump. I'm also aware that Shifty Adam Schiff has only leaked the portions of Mulvaney's testimony that he thinks are most damaging to the President, and considering that they're really not that damaging...

Mulvaney said this in a press conference....

[Watermelon]

First I'll note that Taylor's testimony has been pretty much contradicted by other cherry-picked witnesses.

Second, it is mind numbingly easy to have claimed virtually anything since it isn't like any contradictory evidence could be successfully subpoenaed. It's a reason why documents offered from other governments in matters like this are viewed with a jaundiced eye by security experts.

What part of Taylor's testimony has been contradicted?

[Mountain Man]

Mulvaney said this in a press conference....

Mulvaney:

There was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server. The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption ... The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.

[Watermelon]

Mulvaney:

There was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server. The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption ... The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.

[Mountain Man]

Karl was obviously trying to put words into Mulvaney's mouth after he explicitly said there was no quid pro quo, and Mulvaney should have called him on it, but press conferences happen in real time and there are a lot of distractions, so maybe he simply missed it, but his point, obviously, is that international diplomacy is about give-and-take.

As for "what happened", Trump had a very cordial phonecall with President Zelensky who assured President Trump that they were taking investigations into corruption seriously, including any corruption that might have been perpetrated by members of the previous US presidential administration. As Mulvaney said, "The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate."

And there is still no evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government even knew the aid had been temporarily withheld, or that they did anything special to get it restored.

[Watermelon]

Karl was obviously trying to put words into Mulvaney's mouth after he explicitly said there was no quid pro quo, and Mulvaney should have called him on it, but press conferences happen in real time and there are a lot of distractions, so maybe he simply missed it, but his point, obviously, is that international diplomacy is about give-and-take.

As for "what happened", Trump had a very cordial phonecall with President Zelensky who assured President Trump that they were taking investigations into corruption seriously, including any corruption that might have been perpetrated by members of the previous US presidential administration. As Mulvaney said, "The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate."

And there is still no evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government even knew the aid had been temporarily withheld, or that they did anything special to get it restored.

Then why did it take 2 months after the call to release the aid? Just 2 days after congress was notified about the whistleblower?

Text messages show that a white house visit was also used as leverage. The Ukrainians wanted a confirmation of the date before they do the announcement into the investigations. <- also quid pro quo

Ukrainians were aware that aid was withheld by early august which Morrison also testified to. However, the huge point that seems to be missed is that it doesnt matter if Ukraine knew about it or not. The issue is whether the aid was withheld for this purpose.

How is this not worthy of at least an investigation?

[firstfloor]

Rudy, Lev, Igor, Russian gas sales to Ukraine, etc. The story explains why Marie Yovanovitch was removed. Rachel has it.

[rogue06]

What part of Taylor's testimony has been contradicted?

For instance, from post #97 (see bolded part):

And yet we keep hearing how devastating his testimony was.

It's like how arms expert and former NSC official Tim Morrison (one of those who sat in on the call between Trump and Zelensky) testified yesterday that nothing illegal was said.

Source: NSC Official Tim Morrison To Schiff: ‘I Was Not Concerned That Anything Illegal Was Discussed’ In Trump-Ukraine Phone Call

Tim Morrison, a former National Security Council official under Trump, told Rep. Adam Schiff in testimony today that he was never concerned that Trump discussed anything illegal in his July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president.FederalistNew York TimesSource

© Copyright Original Source

Yet how was this news that Morrison testifies he "wasn't concerned that anything illegal was discussed" during the Trump-Zelensky call?

Or that "Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019"?

Or that Morrison strenuously disagreed with several key claims made by State Department official William Taylor?



Well CNN reports it as ""Impeachment deposition: NSC official corroborates testimony linking Ukraine aid to investigations." And the Washington Post

[rogue06]

And yet we keep hearing how devastating his testimony was.

It's like how arms expert and former NSC official Tim Morrison (one of those who sat in on the call between Trump and Zelensky) testified yesterday that nothing illegal was said.

Source: NSC Official Tim Morrison To Schiff: ‘I Was Not Concerned That Anything Illegal Was Discussed’ In Trump-Ukraine Phone Call

Tim Morrison, a former National Security Council official under Trump, told Rep. Adam Schiff in testimony today that he was never concerned that Trump discussed anything illegal in his July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president.FederalistAlthough Schiff claimed that neither he nor his staff ever spoke to the anti-Trump whistleblower, The New York TimesSource

© Copyright Original Source

Yet how was this news that Morrison testifies he "wasn't concerned that anything illegal was discussed" during the Trump-Zelensky call?

Or that "Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019"?

Or that Morrison strenuously disagreed with several key claims made by State Department official William Taylor?



Well CNN reports it as ""Impeachment deposition: NSC official corroborates testimony linking Ukraine aid to investigations." And the Washington Post

Interestingly, Ken Starr, who knows a thing or two about Special Prosecutors and investigating presidential misconduct, recently declared that if, as has been confirmed, Eric Ciaramella (the "whistleblower") first went to Schiff before the IG had assessed his complaint then he cannot claim whistleblower status but is instead nothing but a leaker.