Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

I have won tons of motions and getting any trial experience in the first quarter of your career is an accomplishment when you work at a big firm and only deal with big clients.  I am sure you are unaware, but it is out of the firms hands on who leads trials.  Giant corporations only pay for senior partners to do that.  
 

but anyways, stop sidetracking me on my accomplishments lol.  It’s cute, but I’m blushing!!!

You need to remember what you have previously stated. "Tons of motions" is not compatible with your former claims. Even John Adams made fun of you for stating that you won a motion, as if it was some major accomplishment. You're not dealing with a dumb jury here and can't bs your way. I guess in all fairness, you wouldn't know what it is like to deal with any jury. Do you still have a cheat sheet to remind you how the partners like their coffee?

[Numark3]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You need to remember what you have previously stated. "Tons of motions" is not compatible with your former claims. Even John Adams made fun of you for stating that you won a motion, as if it was some major accomplishment. You're not dealing with a dumb jury here and can't bs your way. I guess in all fairness, you wouldn't know what it is like to deal with any jury. Do you still have a cheat sheet to remind you how the partners like their coffee?

whatever floats your boat lol.  I don’t care what you think is true

 

 

if you think having a few random people on the internet believe to wrong things about me would bother me, think again

Edited October 7, 2019 by Crayola64

[Tiberius]

26 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  "When Hillary was doing this..."  So you admit Hillary was doing it?  Given the signs that Hillary is resurfacing in the Democratic Party you may be wearing out your welcome there if not worse.

Oh ya, Hillary was working with Putin to throw the 2016 election, to cause hurricanes and she was behind at least half the mass shootings in this country. She also puts cats in blenders. 

 

So Trump is not guilty of anything because of Hillary 

[Koko78]

59 minutes ago, dubs said:

Is the President not allowed to try and root out corruption involving the highest levels of the US government and foreign countries simply because those corrupt people are in the other political party or running for president?

 

No, but only when that corruption involves Democrats - especially Democrats linked to Obama.

 

Investigating corrupt Democrats is even more of an impeachable offense than beating Hillary!

[Tiberius]

28 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

THOSE “EXPLOSIVE” UKRAINE TEXTS MAKE ZERO CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT

 

Paul wrote here about a selection of text exchanges among American diplomats that Adam Schiff released on Thursday. Politico, a reliable narrator of the Democratic Party line, termed the texts “explosive.”

Politico highlights this one, from then-Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker, dated July 25, the day when President Trump spoke on the phone with President Zelensky:

 

 

 

{snip}

 

Here Taylor is mouthing the Democratic Party line, saying that investigating possible corruption in the Obama/Biden administration–the Burisma case–constitutes “help with a political campaign.” The implication is that no matter whether the Biden family did or did not take a $3 million bribe from Burisma (I think it is already quite clear that they did), the matter cannot properly be investigated. But why not?

 

A commenter at Ann Althouse’s site made the point this way:

I would just like to announce today that I plan to run in every presidential campaign for the remainder of my natural life. As a result of my perpetual run for the highest office in the land, anything I may have done in the past is entirely off-limits to any investigation. To even suggest I should be investigated is an insult to democracy itself. Thank you and God bless America.
…
New Rule: Everyone is subject to investigation and prosecution except those running for office as Democrats against Trump.

Got it.

There is no coherent reason why corruption in the Obama/Biden administration should not be investigated, and urging or pressuring allied countries to carry out such investigations is entirely proper and, one would think, a valuable service to our democracy.

 

Kurt Volker, author of some of the “explosive” emails, submitted testimony to several House committees on Thursday. Sean Davis comments on his testimony at The Federalist, and you can read Volker’s written testimony here. Davis writes:

Congressional testimony from the former top American envoy to Ukraine directly contradicts the impeachment narrative offered by congressional Democrats and their media allies. Ambassador Kurt Volker, who served for two years as the top U.S. diplomatic envoy to Ukraine, testified on Thursday that he was never aware of and never took part in any effort to push the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden or his son Hunter. He also stressed that the interactions between Giuliani and Ukrainian officials were facilitated not to find dirt on Biden, but to assuage concerns that the incoming Ukrainian government would not be able to get a handle on corruption within the country.

Several aspects of Volker’s written testimony are interesting. He describes how the Trump administration has reversed Obama’s weak Ukraine policy by standing up to the Russians:

 

More at the link:

 

 

.

The texts were documents showing a crime. The replies that try to back track are funny. Trumps corruption has alarmed a lot of people 

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Oh ya, Hillary was working with Putin to throw the 2016 election, to cause hurricanes and she was behind at least half the mass shootings in this country. She also puts cats in blenders. 

 

So Trump is not guilty of anything because of Hillary 

  Be careful.  I'm sure that if you could read Hillary's mind she believes she can create hurricanes.  Your insolence will cause her to do the Darth Vader psycho-kenetic choke on you!

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You need to remember what you have previously stated. "Tons of motions" is not compatible with your former claims. Even John Adams made fun of you for stating that you won a motion, as if it was some major accomplishment.

 

Where the hell was that?  Even I've won a motion. 

[B-Man]

 

 

LINDSEY 2.0:

 

 

 

 

Related, seen on Facebook:

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

24Posted 

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Where the hell was that?  Even I've won a motion. 

Early in this conversation he bragged about once being a 3rd chair and winning a motion. That was what he saw as his major career accomplishments to date. Both JA and Koko derided him and even one of them said something along the lines of "that's what you brag to mom & dad about, not anyone else". It was about the same time that he was puffing up his chest about being a big time successful lawyer.

 

He came here to straighten us out with his vast knowledge of politics and what is happening in DC. All he's done is expose his ignorance and hubris.

[Deranged Rhino]

31 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

No, but only when that corruption involves Democrats - especially Democrats linked to Obama.

 

Investigating corrupt Democrats is even more of an impeachable offense than beating Hillary!

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

ROGER KIMBALL: Anti-Trump Fraternity and NeverTrump Sorority Collude in Impeachment Scam. 

 

“Donald Trump asked President Zelensky to help with the Justice Department’s investigation of efforts to subvert the 2016 election.

 

Donald Trump is the president of the United States. It is part of his responsibility to see that our elections are open and fair.

 

Bottom line: not much to work with there for the anti-Trump fraternity.”

 

 

 

 

I’m so old, I remember when even a hint of foreign collusion demanded a deep, probing investigation.

 

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, dubs said:

Can someone please try and explain what the issue is here?

 

Is the President not allowed to try and root out corruption involving the highest levels of the US government and foreign countries simply because those corrupt people are in the other political party or running for president?  

 

Also, ask yourself, if the President is going to solicit help from foreign governments to “interfere” in the election on his behalf, do you think he’d do it on a phone line with a bunch of people listening?

 

or...is it more likely he wants people to hear about what was discussed (crowdstrike, Biden) because up to this point the vast majority of people, especially people who rely on the MSM, never heard of crowdstrike and never knew about Hunter Biden, etc....

 

I mean, being dead serious, this seems pretty simple to understand. Amazes me others don’t see it that way. 

There is no issue.

 

Some slimy Dems thought they saw an opportunity to paint something innocuous as something sinister by using misleading rhetoric, reasonably relying on the mass media to carry their water, and their supporters to go along like lemmings.

 

It's straight out of their playbook, and attempts to manipulate cognitive biases to plant false beliefs, and it's disturbingly effective most of the time.  

 

In short, once a belief is formed it tends to remain even after the subject learns that the facts upon which the belief was formed is false.

 

In this example, Dems/media make bogus accusations & present them as fact. They know eventually some or all of the truth will come out, but by that time the belief will have formed and thus remain. As long as they continue to stick with the narrative their followers and many semi-informed casual observers will retain the core message, which is "orange man bad."

 

This is a common pattern. See Russian collusion, Brett Kavanaugh, Jamal Khashoggi, white supremacists are fine people, etc.

 

It looks like they may have overplayed their hand this time, but who knows. What Tibs does here, (stating blatant absurdities as the plain truth) is what the media does, and no one outside of marginalized right-wing news outlets gives much coverage when the truth comes out. They move on to the next fake scandal and the cycle repeats.

 

You'd think lefties would eventually get wise, but few ever do. Never underestimate the power of denial.

[Tiberius]

Just now, Rob's House said:

 

You'd think lefties would eventually get wise, but few ever do. Never underestimate the power of denial.

The president is trying to use a foreign power to corrupt the next election and you just make really stupid excuses for that 

 

Sad. Why not more to Russia? 

[B-Man]

 

 

CLARICE FELDMAN: Mr. Trump Goes To Washington.

Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who changed the rules governing “whistleblowing” to accommodate this hearsay gossip, will rue the day he did this.

 

He said he was unaware that the “whistleblower,” reportedly a CIA functionary assigned to the White House years ago where he worked with anti-Trump Ukrainians to stop Trump and who has not worked there for two or three years, had first talked to congressional staff.

 

He was unaware of it, perhaps because the whistleblower complaint form asks if he had previously told anyone, including congressional staff, about this and lied about that, subjecting himself to possible felony charges.

 

Moreover, allowing in such unsubstantiated gossip by a liar who had no firsthand knowledge of the substance of the complaint will only unleash a flood of these baseless charges, tying up more government resources on nonsense.

 

 

 

At every juncture, the people who we were told to regard as dedicated apolitical professionals holding the line against Trump’s madness have turned out to be crazed partisan hacks of limited competence.

 

I’m beginning to think that much (most?) of our government is made up of crazed partisan hacks of limited competence.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Worth the read. 

 

Given all the focus on nefarious Russia, you could be forgiven for missing the fact that Ukraine was always at the center of the Trump-Russia affair.

 

Viewed in this light, the Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo bribery narrative must compete with another explanation: Trump's determination to get to the bottom of an underhanded years-long campaign arrayed against him. One of the first things he did after the Mueller report debunked the collusion narrative was to call the Ukranian president and ask him to help do just that.

 

The impeachment battle is not just about congressional probes and alleged presidential strong-arming, but about the Russiagate narrative. Anti-Trump forces in the government and media are working to vindicate their previous efforts and discredit a forthcoming Justice Department inquiry into the origins of Russiagate by again connecting Trump and a foreign power to a U.S. election.

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

 

A group of 90 former national security officials who served under presidents of both parties released an open letter on Sunday applauding the original whistleblower in the Ukraine controversy and calling on the government and media to protect his identity.

“A responsible whistleblower makes all Americans safer by ensuring that serious wrongdoing can be investigated and addressed, thus advancing the cause of national security to which we have devoted our careers,” the letter says. “What’s more, being a responsible whistleblower means that, by law, one is protected from certain egregious forms of retaliation. Whatever one’s view of the matters discussed in the whistleblower’s complaint, all Americans should be united in demanding that all branches of our government and all outlets of our media protect this whistleblower and his or her identity.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2019/10/07/cec4666e-e873-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Worth the read. 

 

Given all the focus on nefarious Russia, you could be forgiven for missing the fact that Ukraine was always at the center of the Trump-Russia affair.

 

Viewed in this light, the Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo bribery narrative must compete with another explanation: Trump's determination to get to the bottom of an underhanded years-long campaign arrayed against him. One of the first things he did after the Mueller report debunked the collusion narrative was to call the Ukranian president and ask him to help do just that.

 

The impeachment battle is not just about congressional probes and alleged presidential strong-arming, but about the Russiagate narrative. Anti-Trump forces in the government and media are working to vindicate their previous efforts and discredit a forthcoming Justice Department inquiry into the origins of Russiagate by again connecting Trump and a foreign power to a U.S. election.

More BS 

 

Not even interesting BS, just regular BS 

[Westside]

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The president is trying to use a foreign power to corrupt the next election and you just make really stupid excuses for that 

 

Sad. Why not more to Russia? 

Show me were on the Ukrainian report that he asked for dirt? You won't because you can't.  Stop the lies. God you're bad at this. 

[Rob's House]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The president is trying to use a foreign power to corrupt the next election and you just make really stupid excuses for that 

 

Sad. Why not more to Russia? 

This is what I'm talking about. 

 

If everything the Dems are now alleging were true (which is highly unlikely), it would mean President Trump pressured the President of Ukraine to spill the beans on Biden's corruption.

 

Read the way Tibs describes that and see if it reads like an honest account of facts by a conscientious purveyor of truth, or the dishonest rhetoric of a shill pushing an agenda.

 

This is exactly what mass media does every day.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

This is what I'm talking about. 

 

If everything the Dems are now alleging were true (which is highly unlikely), it would mean President Trump pressured the President of Ukraine to spill the beans on Biden's corruption.

 

Read the way Tibs describes that and see if it reads like an honest account of facts by a conscientious purveyor of truth, or the dishonest rhetoric of a shill pushing an agenda.

 

This is exactly what mass media does every day.

 

Yup. 

 

It goes back to the framing I posed Saturday: 

 

On 10/5/2019 at 1:18 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

With regard to this situation, you're framing the question incorrectly and allowing the narrative once again to take you away from reason and logic and to a place where you're reacting emotionally. You see the conduct on Trump's part as "horrendous" and "gross". And that's all well and good. It's your opinion. But it's also a shallow analysis of what's happening and allows you to turn off your brain in favor of reacting emotionally to the narrative being pushed by the very same people who lied to your face for three years about Trump and Russia. The same people who lied to your face about government spying programs not targeting Americans without cause. The same people who lied to you about WMD being in Iraq... the list is long in just this past decade and should give any reasonable person a moment of pause. 

 

The real question to ask is whether or not you, JA, believe Joe Biden is corrupt. Do you believe that his son being on the board of a foreign gas company, without experience, is proper -- especially when Biden was tasked with lobbying the Ukraine on its energy policy prior to the hiring of his son? If it's not illegal on the surface, doesn't the appearance at least warrant an investigation into whether or not there was any shenanigans afoot? 

 

That's THE question to ask first. Because if you do not think Joe is corrupt, or that there's anything wrong with the appearance of possible corruption, then of course Trump asking anyone to look into Biden would seem, to you, to be politically motivated above all else. After all, the corruption isn't real with Joe, right?

 

Now compare that to what launched the investigation into Trump. 

 

Trump was put through three years of investigations by multiple investigatory bodies and agencies all based on now proven fake news stories supplied by his political opposition. That was the basis for three years of search warrants, interviews, a SCO investigation, and multiple FISA warrants into Obama and Clinton's political rival. It was done with Obama's knowledge and approval, with Clinton's knowledge and approval -- and many in Congress who are crying about protecting the republic today. Trump had a microscope shoved up his ass and the most invasive tools of surveillance and investigation ever created by man were unleashed on him based on less than what's in the public on Joe. They searched his entire life, the lives of everyone he ever had even MINIMAL contact with and the lives of people THOSE people had contact with.  

 

In the end what did they find? No crimes. No illegalities. NOTHING was found to justify what had been done to a US citizen. There was nothing found to support the original premise which kicked off the whole investigation.

 

The only thing that was uncovered was that Trump, prior to being in office, had paid for sex. Not illegally, not in violation of any oath he took, not at the expense of his company or the tax payers. He paid with his own money to keep the affairs quiet. That's ALL they could find after three years of intense scrutiny -- something that had NO bearing on his ability to be CiC and something that was already widely known about Trump's character.

 

In other words, they found NOTHING after three years. 

 

Now, ask yourself and answer honestly... do you think Joe Biden would come out as clean as Trump if he were put under FISA surveillance?

 

Imagine the FBI and CIA talking to and/or surveilling everyone he ever talked to, and everyone they ever talked to. What if the authorities went through every email, text, and call Biden ever made, or any calls or emails or texts his son ever made? Let alone everyone they've ever spoken to in their life (which would include most of Congress and previous presidential administrations)?

 

Do you think Joe comes out squeaky clean like Trump did? 

 

I don't. 

 

Do you think Hillary and Bill would come out clean? Obama? Romney? Schiff? Pelosi? Paul Ryan? 

 

I sure don't. And neither do most American voters.

 

Remember, these are public servants who worked for 150-250k a year for decades and now are worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you think that happened ethically or through book deals? Do you think there's not systemic graft and corruption built into our federal government at that level? Or do you think everyone who works there is a boy scout who is above being asked these kinds of questions because of the "gross" politics involved in doing so? 

 

I sure don't. 

 

And neither does the majority of the country who look at this honestly. 

 

That's why, gross or not, Trump's actions are not going to be viewed as going after a political rival but going after systemic corruption of which Biden partook. That's an ocean's worth of difference. And it's why Trump's winning on this issue and why it's going to be a disaster for those pushing it. 

 

So, JA, do you think Biden is completely clean? Or do you think there's at least enough there to warrant a closer look? 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]