The Whistleblower complaint against Donald Trump
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Read it. Once combined with the transcript of the call in question provided earlier, it clearly shows a whole lot of nothing. What is amazing is that amount of detail this has in regards to the "crowdstrike" server that the media has completely whitewashed in their reporting.
Yeah.Why is it bad pursue criminal activity?
To quote top Democrat aids on the Hill, "It's a joke and ..."
Trump is in trouble. He has been caught on this and I think even he is starting to realize that. He has no one to blame but his own corrupt self too.
I think the odds are very good that Trump is going to be impeached. And who knows where else this unprecedented (as the acting DNI stated) saga is going to lead.
Starting to look a lot like Watergate.
I think the odds are very good that Trump is going to be impeached. And who knows where else this unprecedented (as the acting DNI stated) saga is going to lead.
Starting to look a lot like Watergate.
So the DNI just said the IG that made the credible call had not see the transcript prior to making that call.
For Joe Biden ...
Honest question: Does Pelosi run a vote out as soon as she gets her 218 number aligned to it? And why doesn't she have that yet if all this is so clearly serious. Do you expect a vote this week or next?
Not in the next week. They are going to try to have others testify, including the whistleblower and maybe even some White House officials (based on what is in the complaint). They were already setting up the whistleblower testimony with the questions to the DNI earlier. They are going to let the American people hear what has happened first and then move forward.
I think a question Republicans need to be asking themselves (and one you can bet GOP Senators are asking behind closed doors) is whether or not they want this hanging over their heads over the next six to eight months heading into a presidential election. This isn't going to get better for Trump. He is in trouble on this. And there is still time for a nomination battle within the GOP (which again, I'm sure a number of GOP Senators have in mind who would like to be in the White House themselves).
Sure.
First, why the "anti-Trump" characterization of the whistleblower? Just because he spoke out and filed a complaint doesn't make him anti-Trump. Are you seriously going to support political hacks attacking a whistleblower that even the DNI is defending today? Whistleblowers play an important role in our government and they should be protected. How low is the maga cult going to go in defending Trump's corruption?
As for what the whistleblower alleges, clearly he was receiving a lot of information that was worrying him. He also did rather well describing that phone call with the information he was given. That should tell you something.
Like I said earlier, those on the right who still feel like they have to defend Trump are reaching and grasping right now. They need to just admit for once this is serious and stop trying to play stupid.
Isn't anything the whistleblower says simply hearsay? Putting him/her on the stand for both sides to question will be a losing proposition for the Dems.
As for your second paragraph, I can't help but laugh. If this were such a slam dunk, Dems wouldn't still be scratching to find moderate Dems in the house to support the initial vote. In reality, Pelosi is trying to figure out how to get impeachment passed to quiet her vocal left-wing base without exposing those moderate Dems that got elected in purplish or red districts.
I think Repubs would love to see the impeachment push get started as it will get shot down long before it impacts the overall election. I think the Senate would be more concerned if this happened in May or June of next year and thus had to deal with this during campaign season and had the media giving free daily advertising to those pushing the left's narrative.
Well, if you think it will be a losing proposition for Democrats, let's see. Put him before the American people. Remember, he will be able to give names. Which will lead to further testimony.
Let's do it. Looking forward to it. I'm all for exposing Trump's corruption to the American people.
This sounds a lot like the talking points the Trump administration is pushing through Fox News and their other mouthpieces (which we have seen btw lol). Spin.
Pelosi has played the President so far on this. She has him staggering and babbling nonsense (just watch yesterday's pitiful press conference). He doesn't know what has hit him and she is forcing his hand on many fronts right now.
No wonder White House officials are worried. They should be.
That is my point. This may not get to the Senate till next spring. I think House Dems are going to move as fast as they can (as they should for numerous reasons) but they are also going let the American people hear everything first. And if this continues to go bad for Trump, pressure is going to build on those Senators.
Ratcliffe just destroyed the whistleblower document. Also what’s the deal about the letter being dated Aug 12 and may have been sent to Schiff. Need to look more into that.
Doesn't the transcript, released yesterday, corroborate the whistleblower complaint? The way I see it, that puts the "hearsay" argument to bed.
Ratcliffe destroyed nothing but his own hopes of being the next DNI a couple of months ago lol.
You'd think he would have learned his lesson. Clearly, he hasn't.
Exactly. Plus what the whistleblower wrote about that phone call is spot on.
I would note that the same media that we are supposed to trust with utter reverance reported that the IG determined that the whistleblower was "in favor of a rival political candidate". The IG raised the concern of potential bias. It wasn't pulled from thin air by us 'deniers'.
But the IG also found the complaint credible. The IG stated that the whistleblower had "arguable" political bias BUT that the complaint was credible.
Not shocking that in D.C. someone would arguably have a political bias lol. That doesn't mean what the whistleblower is exposing isn't real and credible though.
Stop trying to attack the source (deflection) and focus on the credible material.
So here is my take as a casual observer.
Someone leaked to the Democrats that there was a whistleblower that was making claims about the president. Granted that this complaint had just occurred. The Democrats come out saying the president asked a foreign government in help in the 2020 election. The president says no and fine here is the transcript. Everyone reads it and depending on how you lean see corruption or not but not anything that anyone would say is impeachable. So now the narrative has shifted to they tried to cover it up. So they release the whistleblower document which is merely second hand information and information they had heard in the news.
So couple of questions
How did Schiff come to know about this when it was still being researched by DNI?
How come none of the people the whistleblower talked to filed their own complaints?
Someone leaked to the Democrats that there was a whistleblower that was making claims about the president. Granted that this complaint had just occurred. The Democrats come out saying the president asked a foreign government in help in the 2020 election. The president says no and fine here is the transcript. Everyone reads it and depending on how you lean see corruption or not but not anything that anyone would say is impeachable. So now the narrative has shifted to they tried to cover it up. So they release the whistleblower document which is merely second hand information and information they had heard in the news.
So couple of questions
How did Schiff come to know about this when it was still being researched by DNI?
How come none of the people the whistleblower talked to filed their own complaints?
It's pretty clear that the whistleblower did get a pretty thorough description of the phone call, although a few inaccuracies. But, mostly it is an assemblage of creative interpretation of many pieces of information. But, it is pretty consistent that there was a desire to have Ukraine help investigate criminal acts of Americans and non-Americans. Which, I can't imagine anyone really being opposed to doing in general.
I guess whether it is a problem for the President is whether those criminals were political opponents or not - is that right? No problem for the US to incentivize another country to take on efforts to help investigate and prosecute illegal conduct.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whistleblower-complaint-trump-key-highlights-142343493.html
During a hearing Thursday morning, acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire said that he didn’t believe the whistleblower was a political hack, stating that he operated in good faith.
“I think the whistleblower did the right thing, I think he followed the law every step of the way,” said Maguire.
Lol they are trying everything they can think of to explain all of this away.
You'd think that you would have been humbled by all the times your TDS has led you to swing and miss.
Still not the case.
Full speed ahead.
The DNI understands the importance of whistleblowers and it was good to see him defend this whistleblower so strongly.
Maguire walked into a mess on this. Remember, he became the acting DNI on August 16. It was very interesting when asked if he had talked to Coates about this . . . he said no and had he known about it, he wouldn't had taken the job.
I do think it is clear though that he talked to Trump about this at some point after August 16.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Ilhan Omar suggesting Columbia University protests not 'anti-Jewish'- Latest: windriverrange
-