Multiple sources are currently reporting that the Whistleblower is alleging a serious White House coverup of the Ukranian phone call and implicates Attorney General Barr and numerous senior White House officials.
"In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election."
Whistleblower complaint alleges WH officials were directed by WH lawyers to “remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to cabinet level officials.”
Acting DNI director Joseph Maguire is about to testify before House Intelligence Committee within minutes.
What to expect:
Dems will ask a lot of questions about process and the law. If this thing was truly about the President breaking the law, no such questioning would be necessary. Example: "Did anyone force you to hold back on this?" We may also hear some dramatic speeches
Republicans will keep trying to bring things back to the issue at hand - Example: "Where is the there there?"
The transcripts relating to the call in question were moved OFF of the server where other call logs were kept. Why would they do that? Maguire, just moments ago admitted he took the whistleblower report, after reading it, to the WH so the president and trumps DOJ could view it. He literally took the evidence of a crime to the people implicated IN that crime. Can you explain why he would do this? The call happened on July 25th, the WB report was submitted days later. Why did the DOJ and the WH and the IG and DNI sit on this report that by law, should have been given to congress, for a month? Can you explain why they would violate the law in this regard? Can you explain why trump would ask the Ukrainian President for a "favor", regarding Biden, (which I might add IS quid pro quo)?
If trump had concerns with regards to corruption and Joe Biden, why would he ask his personal lawyer to be involved, who doesn't work for the government?
Why would trump tell pence to withhold the funding for the Ukraine until after trump talked to the president of the Ukraine and he could find out if the president of the Ukraine would, "play ball"?
Can you explain any of that with logical answers? I'll be shocked if you can and that's not meant as an insult, all I am saying is that those facts are impossible to defend. No matter how you slice it, it all looks VERY VERY bad. And for the record? If Obama had done something like this, I would support impeachment no matter how much I liked him.
I don't think people realize how serious this really is. It's not partisan hackery, it's not just spin and BS. You can claim partisanship all you like, but Pelosi would not be pushing for impeachment if all she had was, "spin BS and rumors".
As it stands now, there are 222 people in the house that would vote for impeachment, plus 30 republicans that would vote for impeachment if it was a silent vote. How many are required to impeach trump, in the house? 218. If they had a vote to impeach, today, trump would be impeached. Impeaching a president is a HUGE deal, they aren't basing their votes on how much they like or dislike the president.
"I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well."
"In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced —as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call."
White House officials told me that they were "directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.
One has to wonder if the transcript of the phone call that was released a day ago is the "official word-for-word transcript" considering it was initially hidden and then later an "unclassified" version of the transcript was produced. We do not have a recording and have no way of verifying that the transcript released was the full and factual transcript of the call. However, even the version they did release raises serious questions as to the Presidents conduct and obvious attempt to solicit interference from a foreign government in an upcoming election.
The transcripts relating to the call in question were moved OFF of the server where other call logs were kept. Why would they do that?
Why would someone hide emails? Comey would say they were reckless, but there was no intent!
Maguire, just moments ago admitted he took the whistleblower report, after reading it, to the WH so the president and trumps DOJ could view it.
How much of that did you hear? Did you get the part about Maguire trying to find out if they were going to exert Executive Privilege?
He literally took the evidence of a crime to the people implicated IN that crime.
Ya, according to the lunatic Adam Schiff. In other words the President is a criminal based on allegations and therefore no government official should serve him and anyone who does should not be believed. Only leftist are buying that shit. Maguire who looked like a man being bullied did a fairly good job of pushing back against the liberal narrative.
Can you explain why he would do this?
Ya, he is following protocol. The President has yet to be declared Public Enemy #1.
The call happened on July 25th, the WB report was submitted days later. Why did the DOJ and the WH and the IG and DNI sit on this report that by law, should have been given to congress, for a month?
Don't know but you shouldn't toss in the IG. He actually went around the DNI. Don't forget the IG was appointed by Trump.
Can you explain why they would violate the law in this regard?
No, why not prosecute them for failure to provide the info in a timely manner?
Can you explain why trump would ask the Ukrainian President for a "favor", regarding Biden, (which I might add IS quid pro quo)?
The favor related to an ongoing US investigation, rather than Biden. Don't feel bad CNN just made the same mistake.
If trump had concerns with regards to corruption and Joe Biden, why would he ask his personal lawyer to be involved, who doesn't work for the government?
He didn't. The State Department did.
Why would trump tell pence to withhold the funding for the Ukraine until after trump talked to the president of the Ukraine and he could find out if the president of the Ukraine would, "play ball"?
Really? You tell me.
Can you explain any of that with logical answers?
You can't prosecute people based on how things seem. BTW you are going to need a lot more than the 2nd hand info thus far provided.
You can claim partisanship all you like, but Pelosi would not be pushing for impeachment if all she had was, "spin BS and rumors".
She miscalculated. Notice that she hasn't been able to take an impeachment vote. I guarantee you, they will regret the day they went down this road.
As it stands now, there are 222 people in the house that would vote for impeachment, plus 30 republicans that would vote for impeachment if it was a silent vote.
Where did you see that? Link please.
How many are required to impeach trump, in the house? 218.
Correct. Pelosi only has 215 confirmed yea's
If they had a vote to impeach, today, trump would be impeached. Impeaching a president is a HUGE deal, they aren't basing their votes on how much they like or dislike the president.
It is a stain on his Presidency. They are basing their votes on their HATE for this President - even though they cannot convict and will lose the election, all of it including the Presidency, the House and the Senate
No, This is not a word for word transcript. It is a memorandum of the call put together by one or two people who listened and took notes. They freely admit to editorializing so that the "conversation flows better" when read, after the fact.
When communications transcript-er Larry Pfifer started there in 2008, his first question was, "where are the tapes?" and they all looked at him in horror and said there hasn't been a tape since Nixon left office.
The fact that personal & politically sensitive "transcripts" have been removed from one WH system and placed in the national security 'codeword' systems says a lot about the intentions to protect the President from obvious criticism.
So the list of questions just keeps growing.
Where are the transcribers original notes?
Is there an original transcript or just this memorandum?
And how many times was the memorandum altered?
Mr Trump thinks he is still running the Trump family business, not a constitutional republic governed by laws.
Why would someone hide emails? Comey would say they were reckless, but there was no intent!
What does comey have to do with the question I asked? Next time just say, "I don't know", instead of giving a non-answer answer.
How much of that did you hear? Did you get the part about Maguire trying to find out if they were going to exert Executive Privilege?
I watched the entire hearing, so heard it from Maguire's mouth, good enough for you? You cannot exert executive privilege to cover up a crime, Vic. Not the way it works.
Ya, according to the lunatic Adam Schiff. In other words the President is a criminal based on allegations and therefore no government official should serve him and anyone who does should not be believed. Only leftist are buying that shit. Maguire who looked like a man being bullied did a fairly good job of pushing back against the liberal narrative.
I think you are forgetting that trump himself admitted to bring up Biden to the president of the Ukraine, not to mention Rudy admitting it on live national TV. But yea, keep keep blaming those evil liberals for trump breaking the law. I tried to give you some rational points to debate and it took you just two lines of text to start screaming about "liberals" and resorting to name calling.
Tell ya what vic, when you want to have a rational debate, and not resort to childish spin and bullshit, let me know. Fair? Good, now please allow me to finish my retort, at which time, i'll go do something more productive than attempting to have an adult debate with someone is woefully unarmed.
Ya, he is following protocol.
So if you find a gun used in a murder, it's protocol to take the gun to the murderer and turn it over to them? He didn't follow protocol. It was supposed to be turned over to congress and it wasn't.
Don't know but you shouldn't toss in the IG. He actually went around the DNI. Don't forget the IG was appointed by Trump.
All the people in this sordid tale were appointed by trump, which makes perfect sense since all of this is obviously the liberals fault.. /s [eye roll] Again, you are trying to spin, why wait almost literally a month to turn it over to congress as THE LAW SAYS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE?
No, why not prosecute them for failure to provide the info in a timely manner?
So you can't explain it. Wouldn't be because they were trying to cover it up, would it? Yep. As to prosecution? One at a time, ok? Pretty clear that the law was broken by trump and his crime syndicate.
He didn't. The State Department did.
So it's just a big coincidence that the State Dept. picked trump's personal lawyer? Of all the lawyers in DC, (and having been there a few times, there are a LOT of lawyers in DC), they just happened to pick Rudy? Blind Luck? Sure....keep believing that.
Really? You tell me.
Yea, didn't think you would be able to answer that one. I'll give it a shot.. Trump wanted to withhold the funds until he could secure dirt on Biden to give him an edge in the upcoming elections, (which is illegal, BTW).
You can't prosecute people based on how things seem. BTW you are going to need a lot more than the 2nd hand info thus far provided.
As I said above, trump and rudy have both already confirmed the reports, the call logs confirm the allegations and the WB report corroborates all of it. 2nd hand info? Not sure vic, looks like a lot of this is true. But keep telling yourself that it's everyone else that is wrong, and not trump.
She miscalculated. Notice that she hasn't been able to take an impeachment vote. I guarantee you, they will regret the day they went down this road.
She just started the inquiry yesterday, let's give it a bit before there is a vote, yea? And how are they going to regret it? If trump is proven to be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, why would you object to him being impeached? I thought trump was all about law and order? Seems weird to me that he breaks the law with shocking regularity.
Correct. Pelosi only has 215 confirmed yea's
I saw on CBS, NBC and CNN that she has 222. EIther way, it's a vast majority. Even if it was only 215, this is just starting, wait until all of this is laid bare for the world to see. Trump is going to be shown the door and pence will go with him since he was in on that call as well.
It is a stain on his Presidency. They are basing their votes on their HATE for this President
No, they aren't. That's just what you tell yourself so you don't have to accept that trump broke the law and is going to pay for it.
What does comey have to do with the question I asked? Next time just say, "I don't know", instead of giving a non-answer answer.
Everything - since the question you posed is the same one Comey answered.
I watched the entire hearing, so heard it from Maguire's mouth, good enough for you? You cannot exert executive privilege to cover up a crime, Vic. Not the way it works.
What crime? You keep forgetting - one group sees criminality, the other group dosen't. Remember Watergate? Both sides saw criminality. That is the only way you get a conviction in the Senate. Fortunately for the nation and the GOP, Nixon resigned long before the House could vote for impeachment. Bottom line is EVERYBODY has to agree or all you have is impeachment. The President survives and probably wins a second term in a landslide and all those moderate democrats in the House get voted out. That's reality!
I think you are forgetting that trump himself admitted to bring up Biden to the president of the Ukraine, not to mention Rudy admitting it on live national TV. But yea, keep keep blaming those evil liberals for trump breaking the law. I tried to give you some rational points to debate and it took you just two lines of text to start screaming about "liberals" and resorting to name calling.
Tell ya what vic, when you want to have a rational debate, and not resort to childish spin and bullshit, let me know. Fair? Good, now please allow me to finish my retort, at which time, i'll go do something more productive than attempting to have an adult debate with someone is woefully unarmed.
You keep forgetting the context - It involved an ongoing US investigation. I didn't call you anything and if you think democrats are going to convince the American public to remove a President based on that trivia, think again. Don't let me keep you from your errands.
So if you find a gun used in a murder, it's protocol to take the gun to the murderer and turn it over to them? He didn't follow protocol. It was supposed to be turned over to congress and it wasn't.
If you want to limit the Presidents authority you need to amend the Constitution. He has executive privilege rights.
All the people in this sordid tale were appointed by trump, which makes perfect sense since all of this is obviously the liberals fault.. /s [eye roll] Again, you are trying to spin, why wait almost literally a month to turn it over to congress as THE LAW SAYS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE?
The whistleblower was a Trump appointee? The CIA agents monitoring all the Presidents calls are Trump appointees? I'm not trying to spin anything. You asked why wait a month and I said why not prosecute the violation?
So you can't explain it. Wouldn't be because they were trying to cover it up, would it? Yep. As to prosecution? One at a time, ok? Pretty clear that the law was broken by trump and his crime syndicate.
I never disputed the point you keep hammering away at. Impeach the President for obstruction on that basis.
So it's just a big coincidence that the State Dept. picked trump's personal lawyer? Of all the lawyers in DC, (and having been there a few times, there are a LOT of lawyers in DC), they just happened to pick Rudy? Blind Luck? Sure....keep believing that.
Call it what you will, but at least admit to the fact that the State Department sent Guiliani
Yea, didn't think you would be able to answer that one. I'll give it a shot.. Trump wanted to withhold the funds until he could secure dirt on Biden to give him an edge in the upcoming elections, (which is illegal, BTW).
Would you go to court with that? Connect the dots? Evidently the impeachment will be based on "it just follows thats what he was trying to do." I'm game. I'll be watching. This is what you've been wanting to do.
As I said above, trump and rudy have both already confirmed the reports, the call logs confirm the allegations and the WB report corroborates all of it. 2nd hand info? Not sure vic, looks like a lot of this is true. But keep telling yourself that it's everyone else that is wrong, and not trump.
Then its a slam dunk. What's the holdup on the vote?
She just started the inquiry yesterday, let's give it a bit before there is a vote, yea? And how are they going to regret it? If trump is proven to be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, why would you object to him being impeached? I thought trump was all about law and order? Seems weird to me that he breaks the law with shocking regularity.
A little time? Of course. She has to convince the country!!!! How will they regret it? No popular support = they lose everything in 2020. How many times do I have to say it. So many on the left are so emotionally involved in putting this stain on the Trump Presidency that they don't understand the stakes here. You think Trump is going to be found guilty in the Senate? NOPE! Not if that vote were held today! You will need two thirds of the Senate to agree!
I saw on CBS, NBC and CNN that she has 222. EIther way, it's a vast majority. Even if it was only 215, this is just starting, wait until all of this is laid bare for the world to see. Trump is going to be shown the door and pence will go with him since he was in on that call as well.
There is more? I'll definitely stay tuned for that.
No, they aren't. That's just what you tell yourself so you don't have to accept that trump broke the law and is going to pay for it.
Iv'e been hearing that since that day in January when he was sworn in.
Yea, you have no idea what I want, which is to watch the process go forward per the laws that we as a nation follow. If trump is impeached? So be it. If not? So be it. I don't care either way. From the left I see them trying to use a legal means to get rid of trump, from the right I see a lot of spin, lies, bullshit, deflection and trolling, (not aimed at you). You talk about going to court with, "that"? Go to court with BS and spin, see where that gets you. The Biden thing fell apart a long time ago, it was a conspiracy theory, (one of MANY) from trump and as usual, trumps base ran with it without doing so much as five minutes of research to find out if was true.
Pro Tip: If you support a president that lies 4,000 times a year, might be a good idea to fact check him before you run to the message boards bleating what he just said, or, you will look really foolish.
The biggest scandal of my lifetime. How did the media miss it?
Journalism providing cover for espionage is nothing new. That was happening during the American Revolution and has happened in every war since. What is concerning is when the marriage between journalism and espionage becomes overt rather than covert. Overt efforts of the intelligence agencies to utilize journalism for propaganda purposes happens in time of war.
Today the intelligence agencies are creating news and driving the political news cycle. Without an obvious geopolitical adversary, a rational conclusion would be that the intelligence agencies are conducting war on the United States. We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.
"Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," ...Chuck Schumer
Neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post ever gave up James Comey. He made the admission himself, without fear or shame.
Unless there is authority to declassify and release. Trump has extended that authority to James Barr, to some degree. Schumer's biggest concern is protecting his political career and, as we have seen, the intelligence community is quite willing to use politics as a weapon.
Trump declassifying and releasing the working transcript of the discussion with Zelensky indicates intent. That's a warning shot that Trump isn't playing politics. The intelligence agencies cannot so easily use politics as a weapon against Trump. I've read the whistleblower letter now and it is strictly a political document. And the allegations and implications are tailored to appeal to political Washington. The allegation is that Trump violated election laws which is outside the jurisdiction of intelligence agencies; the intelligence agencies are not internal watchdogs. And if the threat was Ukrainian interference in US elections then intelligence agencies would not want to burn that source of information.
The national security implications are tenuous, at best since the United States has been pressuring Ukraine to address 'corruption' since Yanukovych was forced out of power in 2014. 'Corruption' is one of those nebulous diplomatic allegations that justifies political meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. The Obama administration really was attempting to establish a friendly puppet government in Ukraine as a political move against Russia. To be fair, Barack Obama was likely unaware of what the intelligence agencies and State Dept. were attempting to do.
Since Trump has not been responding to political threats as a career politician would, the intelligence agencies have been forced to become more overt in using the press to feed the political operatives in Congress (and elsewhere). Because there is such a large alphabet of intelligence agencies it has been relatively easy to confuse the press and public by appearing as though the allegations are from various disparate sources within government.
it has been relatively easy to confuse the press and public by appearing as though the allegations are from various disparate sources within government.
I don't think the American public is "so" confused any longer as evidenced by the collapse of CNN's ratings.
I don't think the American public is "so" confused any longer as evidenced by the collapse of CNN's ratings.
New York Times. Print media has always been (and will continue to be) the most potent tool for propaganda. Talking head media is too dependent upon celebrity to serve as a reliable propaganda tool; it's too easy to discredit the vanity of talking heads. Print media stands on its own.
The intelligence community is not trying to achieve a coup; the community is attempting to protect a coup that has already been accomplished.
There must be an impeachment trial in the Senate. Time will tell if Trump has the stomach for it.
The intelligence community is not trying to achieve a coup; the community is attempting to protect a coup that has already been accomplished.
In other words "you can elect a President, but he may not be ble to do anything?"
There must be an impeachment trial in the Senate.
Yes, if the House ever gets there
Time will tell if Trump has the stomach for it.
He is tough, but after all only human. Over 3 years of this has to be taking a toll.
There are a lot of ifs. The biggest one is if Trump goes beyond all of this to win the next election. Then he defeats all of them and he will have a totally unbridled Presidency. If they hated him before, they are really going to be off the wall with his second term!
The spastic splatter of a fecal matter, who's last few interviews offer inner views of a mind that doesn't, a plausible explanation of a sanity that wasn't, present.
This clown, in events that have transpired, has spoken like an elastic pastor of rubber elaster , as he speaks in paradoxical participles, leaving articles hanging, on/in closets come by and out of, by cross referencing opposing dressing to wounds, inflicted upon a Country via a Turkey with no gizzards, guts, or glory
Rudy Guiliani is most likely to be called before congress. That should be a high stakes Poker game for both sides!
That's going to be a ridiculous spectacle because all we'll get out of any of these dishonest pieces of shit working for the President is "Executive privilege!" and "Attorney client privilege!" which amount to their putting a recording on repeat throughout the hearing that says "I'm invoking my 5th amendment rights" at regular intervals.
The congress was given the responsibility of oversight of the executive. But according to the executive (the justice department and white house office of legal council) there is no requirement to turn over whistleblower complaints about the President to congress. In this case, they were the ones contacted when the complaint was submitted, and they decided on their own it was without merit. How exactly is congress supposed to provide oversight of the executive if the executive branch itself gets to decide what they're allowed to see?
I don't think there is any doubt as to how Republicans would be reacting if what we heard today and what we read in the whistleblower complaint was about a Democrat President using military aide and foreign assistance money to solicit interference in an upcoming election. If this were Obama in 2012 holding back approved funding to an ally country until that country investigated Mitt Romney and any potential ties his companies might have with that country and produce something that Democrats could use against Romney during the campaign, Republicans would have immediately moved for impeachment.
That's going to be a ridiculous spectacle because all we'll get out of any of these dishonest pieces of shit working for the President is "Executive privilege!" and "Attorney client privilege!" which amount to their putting a recording on repeat throughout the hearing that says "I'm invoking my 5th amendment rights" at regular intervals.
You can't do both. Either you testify or you invoke the 5th.
The congress was given the responsibility of oversight of the executive. But according to the executive (the justice department and white house office of legal council) there is no requirement to turn over whistleblower complaints about the President to congress.
You are mischaracterizing it. The President may invoke Executive Privilege over conversations between heads of state. The President waived his right and Schiff & the Committee got everything they want. They might not like what's there, but they got it.
How exactly is congress supposed to provide oversight of the executive if the executive branch itself gets to decide what they're allowed to see?
Imagine Obama talking privately with Ali Khamenei and I'm working at the CIA. I make a whistleblower complaint. Obama has no right to executive privilege? It goes right to a Republican House Intelligence Committee? Are you sure?
Imagine Obama talking privately with Ali Khamenei and I'm working at the CIA. I make a whistleblower complaint. Obama has no right to executive privilege? It goes right to a Republican House Intelligence Committee? Are you sure?
It depends on whether the discussion was about a potential crime. If he were discussing using government aide as leverage to get a foreign government to comply with a scheme to sink the political chances of a potential political opponent then there should be no privilege, you should blow the whistle and that complaint should go directly to congress for investigation. The complaint certainly shouldn't go directly to Obamas lawyers and his justice department to determine if anything in the complaint was worth sending to congress. And yes, I'm sure. I don't give a crap about what party is in control, but I definitely want ALL our representatives whether Democrat or Republican, to follow the law and act with the best interest of the United States. If the complaint was sent to Obama and his appointees, how could anyone trust that they are not just using some BS reasoning of "Having Obama as President is the best interest of the United States, therefore anything to help him get re-elected is in the best interest of the United States.". The lack of oversight from Republicans and the refusal of Trump supporters to hold him to account seems to indicate that's their current line of reasoning.
It depends on whether the discussion was about a potential crime. If he were discussing using government aide as leverage to get a foreign government to comply with a scheme to sink the political chances of a potential political opponent then there should be no privilege, you should blow the whistle and that complaint should go directly to congress for investigation.
Let's tie our hypothetical right in with the Ukraine:
Suppose Obama were to summon Ukrainian investigators to the White House to coordinate with the FBI on an ongoing investigation into a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump. And it took place at a time when the Ukraine was desperate for US aid, with U.S. officials reminding the Ukrainians about how important it was "that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united” in order to determine if an individual, Paul Manafort, received undeclared payments from the party of ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. (Manafort being a campaign manager to an opposition political campaign.)
Should that info be Executive Privilege exempt and flow directly to a Republican House Committee?
summon Ukrainian investigators to the White House to coordinate with the FBI on an ongoing investigation into a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump
When during the 2016 campaign did the Obama administration come out and accuse Trump of conspiring with Russia? When did President Obama get up there and publicly proclaim “Donald Trump and his son are corrupt. All right?” “If that ever happened — if a Democrat ever did what Donald Trump did, if a Democrat ever said what Donald Trump said, they’d be getting the electric chair by right now.”? When did that happen? Before or during the campaign? Oh, that's right, never. The Obama administration didn't even admit that the Trump campaign was under investigation until after the election. How exactly is that the same as Trump openly accusing a political opponent before any investigation, before any facts are revealed? I hear this bullshit argument from Republicans often, that the real scandal was the FBI investigation into Trump during the 2016 campaign, yet none of that was public and didn't become public knowledge till after Trump had become President. How exactly would that be a supposed "deep state" attack designed to sink Trumps chances of winning? If it was, it was the stupidest plot in the history of dirty politics considering no one knew about it till after the election.
I answered your hypothetical. You claim "that happened" when nothing of the sort occurred. Just more fail from the right. If the Obama administration had done what Trump has done they would be guilty just the same, but they didn't. The FBI investigated Manafort but no one used the investigation to claim Trump was corrupt during the campaign, that news only came out after he was President. If you're trying to claim they're the same you're really not comprehending what occurred at all. It was Trump who did in fact say "Joe Biden and his son are corrupt. All right?”. I asked you to show when anything of the sort happened during the Obama administration, and you come back with just more "but but but Ukraine and Manafort" as if there was any similarity. The only thing that is the same is that they were dealing with Ukraine. Everything else is night and day different and I'm sure you'd see that if you weren't so invested in protecting the slime ball criminal in the white house.
Admitted second, even third hand, hearsay. Which they cannot personally verify. The only verification actually used are comments to the media by the President and Giuliani; which are public knowledge. And of course the recall of an Ambassador; again forgetting that all ambassadors serve at the behest of the President and can be recalled at any time and any reason.
Sounds like they had better get Mueller and his team of Hillary and Obama sycophants back on the case.
Does this "whistle blower" work for the US national media or something?
Which they cannot personally verify. The only verification actually used are comments to the media by the President and Giuliani; which are public knowledge.
Who more should you need ?, but since you have proven you need more, context will be provided.
If Biden is innocent, he should be begging for an investigation to clear is good name. The liberals said the same thing about Trump and all the ridiculous accusations they have thrown at him for his entire presidency. Turn about is fair play. If Biden doesn't want to be investigated with a big smile on his face, he must be guilty.
So, we have spent 3 years investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and this "whistle blower" is expressing concerns that the Pres. asked for assistance in uncovering whether or not any interference or hacking originated in the Ukraine? What is the whistle blower afraid of? That the Ukraine may, in fact, confirm that any interference originated in the Ukraine?
Are we still hung up on Trump's use of the language "missing servers"? Clearly, Trump is referring to potentially missing information that was hacked from the servers, because the FBI was not given access to the servers before they were wiped.
Are we to just accept the assertion that CrowdStrike divulged everything, just as we were supposed to accept the assertion that the infamous Steele dossier was chock full of 100% verified facts? Or, that Trump was not surveilled by the Obama admin? Come on! Call it a conspiracy all you want.
“We provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI,” a CrowdStrike spokeswoman, Ilina Cashiola, said Wednesday in an emailed statement. “As we’ve stated before, we stand by our findings and conclusions that have been fully supported by the U.S. intelligence community.”
So, in other words...The intelligence community confirmed that the information that we provided to them was the information that we provided to them. Shocker!!!
Look, if he wants to blow the whistle on potential attempts at bribing a foreign government into interfering with the upcoming election...okay. He spends more time questioning why Trump wants the Ukraine to provide info on the previous election though. Is that a crime?
Here, we see someone who was listening in on a conversation between Trump and the Ukranian president, then passed on that information to someone who claimed to be a whistleblower.Why didn't the person listening in on the conversation be the whistleblower? Why did he/she leak it to someone, whom we have learned is a CIA operative who also has been confirmed to have a political bias in favor of someone else. I wonder who that someone else is? (cough cough Biden) Is it because the person listening knew that if THEY were identified, they would be indicted as a leaker of executive privilege information, so they blabbered to someone that may not be under executive limitations because they are a second hand receiver?
Also, Trump did not ask to look into Biden. He asked to look into Biden's son. His son is an adult and Trump has the executive right to ask about someone that may have criminal tendencies in a country where we provide cash and military aid to, via the American taxpayer.
Why haven't any of the up to a dozen other listeners corroborated the whistleblowers story?
This is going to blow up in the radical left's face....again...
Acting DNI director Joseph Maguire is about to testify before House Intelligence Committee within minutes.
What to expect:
Dems will ask a lot of questions about process and the law. If this thing was truly about the President breaking the law, no such questioning would be necessary. Example: "Did anyone force you to hold back on this?" We may also hear some dramatic speeches
Republicans will keep trying to bring things back to the issue at hand - Example: "Where is the there there?"
It has gone beyond just the phone call. There is now a coverup that involves numerous Trump aides.
The usual corrupt slant. Got it!
The transcripts relating to the call in question were moved OFF of the server where other call logs were kept. Why would they do that? Maguire, just moments ago admitted he took the whistleblower report, after reading it, to the WH so the president and trumps DOJ could view it. He literally took the evidence of a crime to the people implicated IN that crime. Can you explain why he would do this? The call happened on July 25th, the WB report was submitted days later. Why did the DOJ and the WH and the IG and DNI sit on this report that by law, should have been given to congress, for a month? Can you explain why they would violate the law in this regard? Can you explain why trump would ask the Ukrainian President for a "favor", regarding Biden, (which I might add IS quid pro quo)?
If trump had concerns with regards to corruption and Joe Biden, why would he ask his personal lawyer to be involved, who doesn't work for the government?
Why would trump tell pence to withhold the funding for the Ukraine until after trump talked to the president of the Ukraine and he could find out if the president of the Ukraine would, "play ball"?
Can you explain any of that with logical answers? I'll be shocked if you can and that's not meant as an insult, all I am saying is that those facts are impossible to defend. No matter how you slice it, it all looks VERY VERY bad. And for the record? If Obama had done something like this, I would support impeachment no matter how much I liked him.
I don't think people realize how serious this really is. It's not partisan hackery, it's not just spin and BS. You can claim partisanship all you like, but Pelosi would not be pushing for impeachment if all she had was, "spin BS and rumors".
As it stands now, there are 222 people in the house that would vote for impeachment, plus 30 republicans that would vote for impeachment if it was a silent vote. How many are required to impeach trump, in the house? 218. If they had a vote to impeach, today, trump would be impeached. Impeaching a president is a HUGE deal, they aren't basing their votes on how much they like or dislike the president.
"I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well."
"In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced —as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call."
One has to wonder if the transcript of the phone call that was released a day ago is the "official word-for-word transcript" considering it was initially hidden and then later an "unclassified" version of the transcript was produced. We do not have a recording and have no way of verifying that the transcript released was the full and factual transcript of the call. However, even the version they did release raises serious questions as to the Presidents conduct and obvious attempt to solicit interference from a foreign government in an upcoming election.
Why would someone hide emails? Comey would say they were reckless, but there was no intent!
Maguire, just moments ago admitted he took the whistleblower report, after reading it, to the WH so the president and trumps DOJ could view it.
How much of that did you hear? Did you get the part about Maguire trying to find out if they were going to exert Executive Privilege?
He literally took the evidence of a crime to the people implicated IN that crime.
Ya, according to the lunatic Adam Schiff. In other words the President is a criminal based on allegations and therefore no government official should serve him and anyone who does should not be believed. Only leftist are buying that shit. Maguire who looked like a man being bullied did a fairly good job of pushing back against the liberal narrative.
Can you explain why he would do this?
Ya, he is following protocol. The President has yet to be declared Public Enemy #1.
The call happened on July 25th, the WB report was submitted days later. Why did the DOJ and the WH and the IG and DNI sit on this report that by law, should have been given to congress, for a month?
Don't know but you shouldn't toss in the IG. He actually went around the DNI. Don't forget the IG was appointed by Trump.
Can you explain why they would violate the law in this regard?
No, why not prosecute them for failure to provide the info in a timely manner?
Can you explain why trump would ask the Ukrainian President for a "favor", regarding Biden, (which I might add IS quid pro quo)?
The favor related to an ongoing US investigation, rather than Biden. Don't feel bad CNN just made the same mistake.
If trump had concerns with regards to corruption and Joe Biden, why would he ask his personal lawyer to be involved, who doesn't work for the government?
He didn't. The State Department did.
Why would trump tell pence to withhold the funding for the Ukraine until after trump talked to the president of the Ukraine and he could find out if the president of the Ukraine would, "play ball"?
Really? You tell me.
Can you explain any of that with logical answers?
You can't prosecute people based on how things seem. BTW you are going to need a lot more than the 2nd hand info thus far provided.
You can claim partisanship all you like, but Pelosi would not be pushing for impeachment if all she had was, "spin BS and rumors".
She miscalculated. Notice that she hasn't been able to take an impeachment vote. I guarantee you, they will regret the day they went down this road.
As it stands now, there are 222 people in the house that would vote for impeachment, plus 30 republicans that would vote for impeachment if it was a silent vote.
Where did you see that? Link please.
How many are required to impeach trump, in the house? 218.
Correct. Pelosi only has 215 confirmed yea's
If they had a vote to impeach, today, trump would be impeached. Impeaching a president is a HUGE deal, they aren't basing their votes on how much they like or dislike the president.
It is a stain on his Presidency. They are basing their votes on their HATE for this President - even though they cannot convict and will lose the election, all of it including the Presidency, the House and the Senate
No, This is not a word for word transcript. It is a memorandum of the call put together by one or two people who listened and took notes. They freely admit to editorializing so that the "conversation flows better" when read, after the fact.
When communications transcript-er Larry Pfifer started there in 2008, his first question was, "where are the tapes?" and they all looked at him in horror and said there hasn't been a tape since Nixon left office.
The fact that personal & politically sensitive "transcripts" have been removed from one WH system and placed in the national security 'codeword' systems says a lot about the intentions to protect the President from obvious criticism.
So the list of questions just keeps growing.
Where are the transcribers original notes?
Is there an original transcript or just this memorandum?
And how many times was the memorandum altered?
Mr Trump thinks he is still running the Trump family business, not a constitutional republic governed by laws.
Here is the most pertinent statement from page 1 of the WB report:
"I was not a direct witness to most of the events described"
What does comey have to do with the question I asked? Next time just say, "I don't know", instead of giving a non-answer answer.
I watched the entire hearing, so heard it from Maguire's mouth, good enough for you? You cannot exert executive privilege to cover up a crime, Vic. Not the way it works.
I think you are forgetting that trump himself admitted to bring up Biden to the president of the Ukraine, not to mention Rudy admitting it on live national TV. But yea, keep keep blaming those evil liberals for trump breaking the law. I tried to give you some rational points to debate and it took you just two lines of text to start screaming about "liberals" and resorting to name calling.
Tell ya what vic, when you want to have a rational debate, and not resort to childish spin and bullshit, let me know. Fair? Good, now please allow me to finish my retort, at which time, i'll go do something more productive than attempting to have an adult debate with someone is woefully unarmed.
So if you find a gun used in a murder, it's protocol to take the gun to the murderer and turn it over to them? He didn't follow protocol. It was supposed to be turned over to congress and it wasn't.
All the people in this sordid tale were appointed by trump, which makes perfect sense since all of this is obviously the liberals fault.. /s [eye roll] Again, you are trying to spin, why wait almost literally a month to turn it over to congress as THE LAW SAYS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE?
So you can't explain it. Wouldn't be because they were trying to cover it up, would it? Yep. As to prosecution? One at a time, ok? Pretty clear that the law was broken by trump and his crime syndicate.
So it's just a big coincidence that the State Dept. picked trump's personal lawyer? Of all the lawyers in DC, (and having been there a few times, there are a LOT of lawyers in DC), they just happened to pick Rudy? Blind Luck? Sure....keep believing that.
Yea, didn't think you would be able to answer that one. I'll give it a shot.. Trump wanted to withhold the funds until he could secure dirt on Biden to give him an edge in the upcoming elections, (which is illegal, BTW).
As I said above, trump and rudy have both already confirmed the reports, the call logs confirm the allegations and the WB report corroborates all of it. 2nd hand info? Not sure vic, looks like a lot of this is true. But keep telling yourself that it's everyone else that is wrong, and not trump.
She just started the inquiry yesterday, let's give it a bit before there is a vote, yea? And how are they going to regret it? If trump is proven to be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, why would you object to him being impeached? I thought trump was all about law and order? Seems weird to me that he breaks the law with shocking regularity.
I saw on CBS, NBC and CNN that she has 222. EIther way, it's a vast majority. Even if it was only 215, this is just starting, wait until all of this is laid bare for the world to see. Trump is going to be shown the door and pence will go with him since he was in on that call as well.
No, they aren't. That's just what you tell yourself so you don't have to accept that trump broke the law and is going to pay for it.
Everything - since the question you posed is the same one Comey answered.
I watched the entire hearing, so heard it from Maguire's mouth, good enough for you? You cannot exert executive privilege to cover up a crime, Vic. Not the way it works.
What crime? You keep forgetting - one group sees criminality, the other group dosen't. Remember Watergate? Both sides saw criminality. That is the only way you get a conviction in the Senate. Fortunately for the nation and the GOP, Nixon resigned long before the House could vote for impeachment. Bottom line is EVERYBODY has to agree or all you have is impeachment. The President survives and probably wins a second term in a landslide and all those moderate democrats in the House get voted out. That's reality!
I think you are forgetting that trump himself admitted to bring up Biden to the president of the Ukraine, not to mention Rudy admitting it on live national TV. But yea, keep keep blaming those evil liberals for trump breaking the law. I tried to give you some rational points to debate and it took you just two lines of text to start screaming about "liberals" and resorting to name calling.
Tell ya what vic, when you want to have a rational debate, and not resort to childish spin and bullshit, let me know. Fair? Good, now please allow me to finish my retort, at which time, i'll go do something more productive than attempting to have an adult debate with someone is woefully unarmed.
You keep forgetting the context - It involved an ongoing US investigation. I didn't call you anything and if you think democrats are going to convince the American public to remove a President based on that trivia, think again. Don't let me keep you from your errands.
So if you find a gun used in a murder, it's protocol to take the gun to the murderer and turn it over to them? He didn't follow protocol. It was supposed to be turned over to congress and it wasn't.
If you want to limit the Presidents authority you need to amend the Constitution. He has executive privilege rights.
All the people in this sordid tale were appointed by trump, which makes perfect sense since all of this is obviously the liberals fault.. /s [eye roll] Again, you are trying to spin, why wait almost literally a month to turn it over to congress as THE LAW SAYS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE?
The whistleblower was a Trump appointee? The CIA agents monitoring all the Presidents calls are Trump appointees? I'm not trying to spin anything. You asked why wait a month and I said why not prosecute the violation?
So you can't explain it. Wouldn't be because they were trying to cover it up, would it? Yep. As to prosecution? One at a time, ok? Pretty clear that the law was broken by trump and his crime syndicate.
I never disputed the point you keep hammering away at. Impeach the President for obstruction on that basis.
So it's just a big coincidence that the State Dept. picked trump's personal lawyer? Of all the lawyers in DC, (and having been there a few times, there are a LOT of lawyers in DC), they just happened to pick Rudy? Blind Luck? Sure....keep believing that.
Call it what you will, but at least admit to the fact that the State Department sent Guiliani
Yea, didn't think you would be able to answer that one. I'll give it a shot.. Trump wanted to withhold the funds until he could secure dirt on Biden to give him an edge in the upcoming elections, (which is illegal, BTW).
Would you go to court with that? Connect the dots? Evidently the impeachment will be based on "it just follows thats what he was trying to do." I'm game. I'll be watching. This is what you've been wanting to do.
As I said above, trump and rudy have both already confirmed the reports, the call logs confirm the allegations and the WB report corroborates all of it. 2nd hand info? Not sure vic, looks like a lot of this is true. But keep telling yourself that it's everyone else that is wrong, and not trump.
Then its a slam dunk. What's the holdup on the vote?
She just started the inquiry yesterday, let's give it a bit before there is a vote, yea? And how are they going to regret it? If trump is proven to be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, why would you object to him being impeached? I thought trump was all about law and order? Seems weird to me that he breaks the law with shocking regularity.
A little time? Of course. She has to convince the country!!!! How will they regret it? No popular support = they lose everything in 2020. How many times do I have to say it. So many on the left are so emotionally involved in putting this stain on the Trump Presidency that they don't understand the stakes here. You think Trump is going to be found guilty in the Senate? NOPE! Not if that vote were held today! You will need two thirds of the Senate to agree!
I saw on CBS, NBC and CNN that she has 222. EIther way, it's a vast majority. Even if it was only 215, this is just starting, wait until all of this is laid bare for the world to see. Trump is going to be shown the door and pence will go with him since he was in on that call as well.
There is more? I'll definitely stay tuned for that.
No, they aren't. That's just what you tell yourself so you don't have to accept that trump broke the law and is going to pay for it.
Iv'e been hearing that since that day in January when he was sworn in.
Yea, you have no idea what I want, which is to watch the process go forward per the laws that we as a nation follow. If trump is impeached? So be it. If not? So be it. I don't care either way. From the left I see them trying to use a legal means to get rid of trump, from the right I see a lot of spin, lies, bullshit, deflection and trolling, (not aimed at you). You talk about going to court with, "that"? Go to court with BS and spin, see where that gets you. The Biden thing fell apart a long time ago, it was a conspiracy theory, (one of MANY) from trump and as usual, trumps base ran with it without doing so much as five minutes of research to find out if was true.
Pro Tip: If you support a president that lies 4,000 times a year, might be a good idea to fact check him before you run to the message boards bleating what he just said, or, you will look really foolish.
Yes, another political crises hand delivered by the intelligence community.
It's time for an impeachment trial. Time to shine some sunlight onto the intelligence community. Just keep in mind that Trump is expendable.
The biggest scandal of my lifetime. How did the media miss it?
Journalism providing cover for espionage is nothing new. That was happening during the American Revolution and has happened in every war since. What is concerning is when the marriage between journalism and espionage becomes overt rather than covert. Overt efforts of the intelligence agencies to utilize journalism for propaganda purposes happens in time of war.
Today the intelligence agencies are creating news and driving the political news cycle. Without an obvious geopolitical adversary, a rational conclusion would be that the intelligence agencies are conducting war on the United States. We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.
"Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," ...Chuck Schumer
Neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post ever gave up James Comey. He made the admission himself, without fear or shame.
Unless there is authority to declassify and release. Trump has extended that authority to James Barr, to some degree. Schumer's biggest concern is protecting his political career and, as we have seen, the intelligence community is quite willing to use politics as a weapon.
Trump declassifying and releasing the working transcript of the discussion with Zelensky indicates intent. That's a warning shot that Trump isn't playing politics. The intelligence agencies cannot so easily use politics as a weapon against Trump. I've read the whistleblower letter now and it is strictly a political document. And the allegations and implications are tailored to appeal to political Washington. The allegation is that Trump violated election laws which is outside the jurisdiction of intelligence agencies; the intelligence agencies are not internal watchdogs. And if the threat was Ukrainian interference in US elections then intelligence agencies would not want to burn that source of information.
The national security implications are tenuous, at best since the United States has been pressuring Ukraine to address 'corruption' since Yanukovych was forced out of power in 2014. 'Corruption' is one of those nebulous diplomatic allegations that justifies political meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. The Obama administration really was attempting to establish a friendly puppet government in Ukraine as a political move against Russia. To be fair, Barack Obama was likely unaware of what the intelligence agencies and State Dept. were attempting to do.
Since Trump has not been responding to political threats as a career politician would, the intelligence agencies have been forced to become more overt in using the press to feed the political operatives in Congress (and elsewhere). Because there is such a large alphabet of intelligence agencies it has been relatively easy to confuse the press and public by appearing as though the allegations are from various disparate sources within government.
I don't think the American public is "so" confused any longer as evidenced by the collapse of CNN's ratings.
New York Times. Print media has always been (and will continue to be) the most potent tool for propaganda. Talking head media is too dependent upon celebrity to serve as a reliable propaganda tool; it's too easy to discredit the vanity of talking heads. Print media stands on its own.
The intelligence community is not trying to achieve a coup; the community is attempting to protect a coup that has already been accomplished.
There must be an impeachment trial in the Senate. Time will tell if Trump has the stomach for it.
In other words "you can elect a President, but he may not be ble to do anything?"
There must be an impeachment trial in the Senate.
Yes, if the House ever gets there
Time will tell if Trump has the stomach for it.
He is tough, but after all only human. Over 3 years of this has to be taking a toll.
There are a lot of ifs. The biggest one is if Trump goes beyond all of this to win the next election. Then he defeats all of them and he will have a totally unbridled Presidency. If they hated him before, they are really going to be off the wall with his second term!
Just like Obama...
oh the irony.
Don't worry he did a lot of damage. Ask any teacher beaten by a student and has to face the same student every day.
pdf of the whistle blower complaint
Thanks John....On first glance...Rudy Guiliani is most likely to be called before congress. That should be a high stakes Poker game for both sides!
Another Meltdown of Chernobyl proportions.
By whom? The man who destroyed the American Mafia or the lunatic now chairing the House Intelligence Committee?
The spastic splatter of a fecal matter, who's last few interviews offer inner views of a mind that doesn't, a plausible explanation of a sanity that wasn't, present.
This clown, in events that have transpired, has spoken like an elastic pastor of rubber elaster , as he speaks in paradoxical participles, leaving articles hanging, on/in closets come by and out of, by cross referencing opposing dressing to wounds, inflicted upon a Country via a Turkey with no gizzards, guts, or glory
as he A tempts to shove it up Americas'
Whole group of Asses
That seems to be your expertise
that you readily recognize
Whenever I see your avatar
i'm not here to be anonymous
That's going to be a ridiculous spectacle because all we'll get out of any of these dishonest pieces of shit working for the President is "Executive privilege!" and "Attorney client privilege!" which amount to their putting a recording on repeat throughout the hearing that says "I'm invoking my 5th amendment rights" at regular intervals.
The congress was given the responsibility of oversight of the executive. But according to the executive (the justice department and white house office of legal council) there is no requirement to turn over whistleblower complaints about the President to congress. In this case, they were the ones contacted when the complaint was submitted, and they decided on their own it was without merit. How exactly is congress supposed to provide oversight of the executive if the executive branch itself gets to decide what they're allowed to see?
I don't think there is any doubt as to how Republicans would be reacting if what we heard today and what we read in the whistleblower complaint was about a Democrat President using military aide and foreign assistance money to solicit interference in an upcoming election. If this were Obama in 2012 holding back approved funding to an ally country until that country investigated Mitt Romney and any potential ties his companies might have with that country and produce something that Democrats could use against Romney during the campaign, Republicans would have immediately moved for impeachment.
You can't do both. Either you testify or you invoke the 5th.
The congress was given the responsibility of oversight of the executive. But according to the executive (the justice department and white house office of legal council) there is no requirement to turn over whistleblower complaints about the President to congress.
You are mischaracterizing it. The President may invoke Executive Privilege over conversations between heads of state. The President waived his right and Schiff & the Committee got everything they want. They might not like what's there, but they got it.
How exactly is congress supposed to provide oversight of the executive if the executive branch itself gets to decide what they're allowed to see?
Imagine Obama talking privately with Ali Khamenei and I'm working at the CIA. I make a whistleblower complaint. Obama has no right to executive privilege? It goes right to a Republican House Intelligence Committee? Are you sure?
It depends on whether the discussion was about a potential crime. If he were discussing using government aide as leverage to get a foreign government to comply with a scheme to sink the political chances of a potential political opponent then there should be no privilege, you should blow the whistle and that complaint should go directly to congress for investigation. The complaint certainly shouldn't go directly to Obamas lawyers and his justice department to determine if anything in the complaint was worth sending to congress. And yes, I'm sure. I don't give a crap about what party is in control, but I definitely want ALL our representatives whether Democrat or Republican, to follow the law and act with the best interest of the United States. If the complaint was sent to Obama and his appointees, how could anyone trust that they are not just using some BS reasoning of "Having Obama as President is the best interest of the United States, therefore anything to help him get re-elected is in the best interest of the United States.". The lack of oversight from Republicans and the refusal of Trump supporters to hold him to account seems to indicate that's their current line of reasoning.
Let's tie our hypothetical right in with the Ukraine:
Suppose Obama were to summon Ukrainian investigators to the White House to coordinate with the FBI on an ongoing investigation into a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump. And it took place at a time when the Ukraine was desperate for US aid, with U.S. officials reminding the Ukrainians about how important it was "that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united” in order to determine if an individual, Paul Manafort, received undeclared payments from the party of ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. (Manafort being a campaign manager to an opposition political campaign.)
Should that info be Executive Privilege exempt and flow directly to a Republican House Committee?
When during the 2016 campaign did the Obama administration come out and accuse Trump of conspiring with Russia? When did President Obama get up there and publicly proclaim “Donald Trump and his son are corrupt. All right?” “If that ever happened — if a Democrat ever did what Donald Trump did, if a Democrat ever said what Donald Trump said, they’d be getting the electric chair by right now.”? When did that happen? Before or during the campaign? Oh, that's right, never. The Obama administration didn't even admit that the Trump campaign was under investigation until after the election. How exactly is that the same as Trump openly accusing a political opponent before any investigation, before any facts are revealed? I hear this bullshit argument from Republicans often, that the real scandal was the FBI investigation into Trump during the 2016 campaign, yet none of that was public and didn't become public knowledge till after Trump had become President. How exactly would that be a supposed "deep state" attack designed to sink Trumps chances of winning? If it was, it was the stupidest plot in the history of dirty politics considering no one knew about it till after the election.
You don't want to answer my hypothetical? I don't blame you because that happened - it's how they had the Ukraine help them get Manafort!
I answered your hypothetical. You claim "that happened" when nothing of the sort occurred. Just more fail from the right. If the Obama administration had done what Trump has done they would be guilty just the same, but they didn't. The FBI investigated Manafort but no one used the investigation to claim Trump was corrupt during the campaign, that news only came out after he was President. If you're trying to claim they're the same you're really not comprehending what occurred at all. It was Trump who did in fact say "Joe Biden and his son are corrupt. All right?”. I asked you to show when anything of the sort happened during the Obama administration, and you come back with just more "but but but Ukraine and Manafort" as if there was any similarity. The only thing that is the same is that they were dealing with Ukraine. Everything else is night and day different and I'm sure you'd see that if you weren't so invested in protecting the slime ball criminal in the white house.
So no names of witnesses.
Admitted second, even third hand, hearsay. Which they cannot personally verify. The only verification actually used are comments to the media by the President and Giuliani; which are public knowledge. And of course the recall of an Ambassador; again forgetting that all ambassadors serve at the behest of the President and can be recalled at any time and any reason.
Sounds like they had better get Mueller and his team of Hillary and Obama sycophants back on the case.
Does this "whistle blower" work for the US national media or something?
Who more should you need ?, but since you have proven you need more, context will be provided.
If Biden is innocent, he should be begging for an investigation to clear is good name. The liberals said the same thing about Trump and all the ridiculous accusations they have thrown at him for his entire presidency. Turn about is fair play. If Biden doesn't want to be investigated with a big smile on his face, he must be guilty.
Equal standards for all! I like it.
Investigate Biden for WHAT?
No idea, huh? I don't know where jung or anyone else should begin.
Devin Nunes is talkin' like he has a chance to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.
And now we hear from acting DNI Joseph Maguire - the man the Washington Post FALSELY claimed had threatened to resign!
Executive privilege.........."I cannot waive"
He's trying to follow the law. Evidently he didn't know the law dosen't apply to Trump
Actually that humongus lie was told by The New York Times.
'Evidently he didn't know the law doesn't apply to Trump'
You sure got that right. The law doesn't SEEM to apply to tRump no matter which one(s) he breaks.
Does ANYBODY ELSE
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS THINKING !!!????
'Does ANYBODY ELSE
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS THINKING !!!????'
If he jaywalked he would have been impeached long ago.
Thank God he made it!
Defeating the hate filled left
Yea, we've all never seen any HATE on the RIGHT...
led by a litre two courts short of a tweeter dropping droppings that seed hate,
sowed for the feeble mind it, and they never seem to see or minded
Are the spelling mistakes there for effect or is there another reason. Poetry it is not!
Oh, there is the influence...Good to know
!!!
He already has, his chair is under the desk, facing trumps crotch.
Intel Chief Maguire:
So, we have spent 3 years investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and this "whistle blower" is expressing concerns that the Pres. asked for assistance in uncovering whether or not any interference or hacking originated in the Ukraine? What is the whistle blower afraid of? That the Ukraine may, in fact, confirm that any interference originated in the Ukraine?
Are we still hung up on Trump's use of the language "missing servers"? Clearly, Trump is referring to potentially missing information that was hacked from the servers, because the FBI was not given access to the servers before they were wiped.
Are we to just accept the assertion that CrowdStrike divulged everything, just as we were supposed to accept the assertion that the infamous Steele dossier was chock full of 100% verified facts? Or, that Trump was not surveilled by the Obama admin? Come on! Call it a conspiracy all you want.
So, in other words...The intelligence community confirmed that the information that we provided to them was the information that we provided to them. Shocker!!!
Look, if he wants to blow the whistle on potential attempts at bribing a foreign government into interfering with the upcoming election...okay. He spends more time questioning why Trump wants the Ukraine to provide info on the previous election though. Is that a crime?
Trump is going to lose his mind shortly, days or weeks at the most. We are going into uncharted water.
TODAY, Trump made an allusion to whistleblowers as "spies" and spies being executed.
Not a joke.
"Whistleblower Report Will Allege White House Covered Up Trump Call To Ukraine"
Seems, since watching the new and improved "Big Top Show" hearing/clowns, clowns, clowns everywhere….. It's still "ALLEGED" !
Adam Schiff does his adlib of what Trump said (Then explains it wasn't true later, after being told he sounded like an idiot) ….. A Riot !
Adam Schiff ….. Seems to need someone else to tell him to start an investigation (Do you think we should investigate Mr. Maguire?) !
Thanks for the content free remarks.
You should have been on the Republican side of the committee this morning. You would have been a star !
Both were actually done and said on National TV !
Didn't you watch ?
Here, we see someone who was listening in on a conversation between Trump and the Ukranian president, then passed on that information to someone who claimed to be a whistleblower.Why didn't the person listening in on the conversation be the whistleblower? Why did he/she leak it to someone, whom we have learned is a CIA operative who also has been confirmed to have a political bias in favor of someone else. I wonder who that someone else is? (cough cough Biden) Is it because the person listening knew that if THEY were identified, they would be indicted as a leaker of executive privilege information, so they blabbered to someone that may not be under executive limitations because they are a second hand receiver?
Also, Trump did not ask to look into Biden. He asked to look into Biden's son. His son is an adult and Trump has the executive right to ask about someone that may have criminal tendencies in a country where we provide cash and military aid to, via the American taxpayer.
Why haven't any of the up to a dozen other listeners corroborated the whistleblowers story?
This is going to blow up in the radical left's face....again...