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

During the 2018 midterms, dozens of “moderate” Democrats won House seats in swing districts by forswearing partisan feuds in order to concentrate on the needs of their constituents. They pledged to focus less on conflict than on finding common ground with their Republican colleagues. They also modulated their comments concerning President Trump and, when the subject of impeachment arose, insisted that it would be a divisive and unproductive exercise. Thursday, however, all but two voted in favor of a hyper-partisan impeachment resolution, exposing their campaign promises as cynical lies and ensuring that the Democrats will lose their House majority in 2020.

The Democrats, their bluster about the 2018 “blue wave” notwithstanding, have a particularly tenuous grasp on the House majority. The GOP needs to flip only 19 seats in 2020 to regain control — and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has already identified more than twice that number of vulnerable Democrats in districts won by Trump in 2016. Thursday’s vote has imperiled those weak Democrats even further by graphically illustrating that there really is no such thing as a “moderate Democrat.” Below is a list of Democrats who promised their constituents they would rise above the corrupting influence of the Washington establishment and are now likely to lose their House seats.

Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.): In 2018, Cunningham beat a weak opponent by fewer than 4,000 votes in South Carolina’s 1st District. During his campaign, and until just recently, he spoke of impeachment in the following terms: “I’ve warned members of my own party that a partisan rush to impeach the president would be bad for the country.” Last Tuesday, however, he announced that he would vote for the resolution. Like most of these faux moderates, he will tell his constituents that Thursday’s vote merely affirmed an ongoing investigation. This will not mollify the voters to whom he so brazenly lied. In a district that the president won by 13 points in 2016, Congressman Cunningham is a dead Democrat walking.

Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.): Rose defeated Republican Dan Donovan in 2018 in New York City’s last Republican stronghold, the 11th District. Like Cunningham, he told his constituents he was against impeachment. In fact, he wrote an op-ed that included the following denunciation of any such course of action: “Impeachment will not improve the lives of the hardworking Staten Islanders and South Brooklynites that I fight for every day.” But Congressman Rose had an impeachment epiphany after he arrived in Washington. The president won NY-11 by 10 points in 2016. With Trump at the top of the ticket again in 2020, plus a strong Republican opponent backed by the NRCC, Representative Rose is very likely a goner.

Rep. Kendra Horn (D-Okla.): Horn narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Steve Russell in Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District, a major upset in a state dominated by the GOP. Her margin was painfully thin, and her victory was no doubt facilitated by her alleged opposition to impeachment. As recently as a month ago, she was still trying to have it both ways when talking to her constituents: “While I didn’t support an impeachment inquiry, I certainly know that these are serious allegations that have to be investigated.” Yet when Thursday arrived and she had the opportunity to keep her promise or cave to political pressure, she opted to betray the voters who elected her. Rep. Horn won her seat by a mere 1.4 percent in a district Trump carried by 14 points in 2016. She’ll be history after 2020....

...and more.

[rogue06]

OK, this is where I saw....

Impeachment Vote Will Cost These Dems Their Seats

During the 2018 midterms, dozens of “moderate” Democrats won House seats in swing districts by forswearing partisan feuds in order to concentrate on the needs of their constituents. They pledged to focus less on conflict than on finding common ground with their Republican colleagues. They also modulated their comments concerning President Trump and, when the subject of impeachment arose, insisted that it would be a divisive and unproductive exercise. Thursday, however, all but two voted in favor of a hyper-partisan impeachment resolution, exposing their campaign promises as cynical lies and ensuring that the Democrats will lose their House majority in 2020.

The Democrats, their bluster about the 2018 “blue wave” notwithstanding, have a particularly tenuous grasp on the House majority. The GOP needs to flip only 19 seats in 2020 to regain control — and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has already identified more than twice that number of vulnerable Democrats in districts won by Trump in 2016. Thursday’s vote has imperiled those weak Democrats even further by graphically illustrating that there really is no such thing as a “moderate Democrat.” Below is a list of Democrats who promised their constituents they would rise above the corrupting influence of the Washington establishment and are now likely to lose their House seats.

Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.): In 2018, Cunningham beat a weak opponent by fewer than 4,000 votes in South Carolina’s 1st District. During his campaign, and until just recently, he spoke of impeachment in the following terms: “I’ve warned members of my own party that a partisan rush to impeach the president would be bad for the country.” Last Tuesday, however, he announced that he would vote for the resolution. Like most of these faux moderates, he will tell his constituents that Thursday’s vote merely affirmed an ongoing investigation. This will not mollify the voters to whom he so brazenly lied. In a district that the president won by 13 points in 2016, Congressman Cunningham is a dead Democrat walking.

Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.): Rose defeated Republican Dan Donovan in 2018 in New York City’s last Republican stronghold, the 11th District. Like Cunningham, he told his constituents he was against impeachment. In fact, he wrote an op-ed that included the following denunciation of any such course of action: “Impeachment will not improve the lives of the hardworking Staten Islanders and South Brooklynites that I fight for every day.” But Congressman Rose had an impeachment epiphany after he arrived in Washington. The president won NY-11 by 10 points in 2016. With Trump at the top of the ticket again in 2020, plus a strong Republican opponent backed by the NRCC, Representative Rose is very likely a goner.

Rep. Kendra Horn (D-Okla.): Horn narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Steve Russell in Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District, a major upset in a state dominated by the GOP. Her margin was painfully thin, and her victory was no doubt facilitated by her alleged opposition to impeachment. As recently as a month ago, she was still trying to have it both ways when talking to her constituents: “While I didn’t support an impeachment inquiry, I certainly know that these are serious allegations that have to be investigated.” Yet when Thursday arrived and she had the opportunity to keep her promise or cave to political pressure, she opted to betray the voters who elected her. Rep. Horn won her seat by a mere 1.4 percent in a district Trump carried by 14 points in 2016. She’ll be history after 2020....

...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.

Thats his comment after he was bashed by republicans for saying there was a quid pro quo:

"So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?," ABC's Jonathan Karl asked.

"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," Mulvaney said.

Karl pressed Mulvaney, saying, "To be clear: what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is 'funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened, as well.'"

"We do that all the time with foreign policy," Mulvaney responded, adding that the administration had also held up money to three Central American countries so that they would change their immigration policies.

"Get over it," he said. "There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy."

From the link in my previous post.

Also:

Asked about Mulvaney's remarks Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said: "You don’t hold up foreign aid that we had previously appropriated for a political initiative. Period."

So holding up the aid is not contested. Why was the aid then released? Did something happen for Trumps concerns about corruption or other foreign participation to subside? Or was it because of the whistleblower?

Feb 28 - Trump administration said they would release aid to Ukraine
Sep 9 - congressional committees are informed of the whistlerblowers report
Sep 11 - Ukraine aid released

Timing seems to support the latter.

[Mountain Man]

Thats his comment after he was bashed by republicans for saying there was a quid pro quo:

"So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?," ABC's Jonathan Karl asked.

"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," Mulvaney said.

Karl pressed Mulvaney, saying, "To be clear: what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is 'funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened, as well.'"

"We do that all the time with foreign policy," Mulvaney responded, adding that the administration had also held up money to three Central American countries so that they would change their immigration policies.

"Get over it," he said. "There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy."

From the link in my previous post.

Also:

Asked about Mulvaney's remarks Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said: "You don’t hold up foreign aid that we had previously appropriated for a political initiative. Period."

So holding up the aid is not contested. Why was the aid then released? Did something happen for Trumps concerns about corruption or other foreign participation to subside? Or was it because of the whistleblower?

Feb 28 - Trump administration said they would release aid to Ukraine
Sep 9 - congressional committees are informed of the whistlerblowers report
Sep 11 - Ukraine aid released

Timing seems to support the latter.

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.


A top National Security Council (NSC) official who listened to President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky testified to Congress today that he did not believe Trump had discussed anything illegal during the conversation.

“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison testified today, according to a record of his remarks obtained by The Federalist.

Morrison testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call, casting doubt on allegations that Trump somehow conveyed an illegal quid pro quo demand during the July 25 call.

“I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the [military funding] review until August 28, 2019,” Morrison said. That is the same day that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chief anti-Trump inquisitor in the U.S. House of Representatives, disclosed on Twitter that funding had been held up. Politico also published a story that day, sourced to anonymous leaks, that military funding had been temporarily held up.

Although Schiff claimed that neither he nor his staff ever spoke to the anti-Trump whistleblower, The New York Times reported that the complainant, whom RealClearInvestigations identified as Eric Ciaramella, coordinated with Schiff’s office before filing his complaint with the intelligence community inspector general on August 12. While Schiff initially demanded that the anti-Trump complainant be allowed to publicly testify, he quickly changed course following the reports that he and his staff had secretly colluded with the whistleblower and then lied about the interactions.

Morrison also pointed out key factual inaccuracies in testimony provided by William Taylor, a State Department official who works in the U.S. embassy in Kiev, Ukraine. Morrison said that, contrary to Taylor’s claims, Morrison never met with the Ukrainian National Security advisor in his private hotel room.

Morrison also said Taylor falsely claimed that Ambassador Gordon Sondland demanded a public statement from the Ukrainian president committing to investigate Burisma, a controversial Ukrainian energy company that paid Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter millions of dollars to sit on its board.

“My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland’s proposal to [Ukrainian National Security Advisor Andriy] Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general — not President Zelensky — would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation,” Morrison testified.

Morrison testified that the transcript of the phone call that was declassified and released by Trump in late September “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call,” and that he was concerned that the substance of the call would be leaked to the media. Morrison said he immediately informed a NSC lawyer about his concerns that the phone call would be leaked. Democrats have alleged that security measures taken to prevent leaks of the top secret call transcript prove that Trump should be removed from office.

He also told lawmakers that the national security process worked as designed in the case of the military funding that Congress appropriated for Ukraine.

“I am pleased our process gave the president the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance,” he said. “I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump administration accomplish.”

Democrats on Thursday morning voted to rubber-stamp Schiff’s efforts to impeach Trump with secret hearings and lopsided rules that prevent Republicans from subpoenaing witnesses or evidence without first obtaining Schiff’s permission. A bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans opposed the measure.


Source

© 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 declares "White House Official Corroborates Diplomat’s Account that Trump Appeared to Seek Quid Pro Quo"

[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.


A top National Security Council (NSC) official who listened to President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky testified to Congress today that he did not believe Trump had discussed anything illegal during the conversation.

“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison testified today, according to a record of his remarks obtained by The Federalist.

Morrison testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call, casting doubt on allegations that Trump somehow conveyed an illegal quid pro quo demand during the July 25 call.

“I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the [military funding] review until August 28, 2019,” Morrison said. That is the same day that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chief anti-Trump inquisitor in the U.S. House of Representatives, disclosed on Twitter that funding had been held up. Politico also published a story that day, sourced to anonymous leaks, that military funding had been temporarily held up.

Although Schiff claimed that neither he nor his staff ever spoke to the anti-Trump whistleblower, The New York Times reported that the complainant, whom RealClearInvestigations identified as Eric Ciaramella, coordinated with Schiff’s office before filing his complaint with the intelligence community inspector general on August 12. While Schiff initially demanded that the anti-Trump complainant be allowed to publicly testify, he quickly changed course following the reports that he and his staff had secretly colluded with the whistleblower and then lied about the interactions.

Morrison also pointed out key factual inaccuracies in testimony provided by William Taylor, a State Department official who works in the U.S. embassy in Kiev, Ukraine. Morrison said that, contrary to Taylor’s claims, Morrison never met with the Ukrainian National Security advisor in his private hotel room.

Morrison also said Taylor falsely claimed that Ambassador Gordon Sondland demanded a public statement from the Ukrainian president committing to investigate Burisma, a controversial Ukrainian energy company that paid Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter millions of dollars to sit on its board.

“My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland’s proposal to [Ukrainian National Security Advisor Andriy] Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general — not President Zelensky — would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation,” Morrison testified.

Morrison testified that the transcript of the phone call that was declassified and released by Trump in late September “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call,” and that he was concerned that the substance of the call would be leaked to the media. Morrison said he immediately informed a NSC lawyer about his concerns that the phone call would be leaked. Democrats have alleged that security measures taken to prevent leaks of the top secret call transcript prove that Trump should be removed from office.

He also told lawmakers that the national security process worked as designed in the case of the military funding that Congress appropriated for Ukraine.

“I am pleased our process gave the president the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance,” he said. “I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump administration accomplish.”

Democrats on Thursday morning voted to rubber-stamp Schiff’s efforts to impeach Trump with secret hearings and lopsided rules that prevent Republicans from subpoenaing witnesses or evidence without first obtaining Schiff’s permission. A bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans opposed the measure.


Source

© 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 declares "White House Official Corroborates Diplomat’s Account that Trump Appeared to Seek Quid Pro Quo"

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.