Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment
 

Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."
 

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president."
 

Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid also assured his Twitter followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place," referring to outgoing Trump administration employees.
 

</snip>

Heh Trump was reading these tweets at this rally in Louisiana tonight.

 

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

None of it matters.  In the end you have Zelensky denying a quid pro quo/extortion and the money being released without a quid pro quo/being extorted.  The House can impeach but the Senate will never convict.

 

And not only did Trump not get what he asked from the Ukraine, and not only gave the Ukraine what he was supposedly withholding, he's now getting impeached for something he didn't ask for.

 

He's an extraordinarily bad extortionist.  So bad that I'd support him being impeached on being too incompetent a crook to hold the office.  

[transplantbillsfan]

Jesus it's still nuts over here.

 

This is so much bigger than the SUMMARY (not transcript) of that phone call at this point.

 

Here is what I will give all of you: the other day I either read or heard an interview with a rabid Trump supporter and it really stuck with me and really made me think about this place. When asked DIRECTLY if her opinion on the impeachment inquiry had changed when the reporter informed her that Colonel Vindman's testimony--from someone who listened DIRECTLY to the call--revealed that the SUMMARY of that phone call left out key words and phrases like "Burisma" (directly and clearly tying this to Biden and his son, which seemed to somehow be in question), she said "No." When the reporter or interviewer asked why, she said, and I paraphrase because I can't remember where I saw or read it, "Who can I really trust? There are 2 sets of facts. You present your set of facts and I get my own."

 

Folks, there's only one set of facts.

 

Get out of the rabbit hole that is Twitter.

 

At this point you've had testimony from multiple highly respected people--Taylor, Vindman, Volkner-- who corroborate the quid pro quo and idiots like Sondland who lied and have come back to change their testimony.

 

Sadly, we're in a Twitter world, so I guarantee Congressional Republicans stick with Trump til the end no matter what and Senate republicans likely do the same.

 

And they're going to move the goalposts every other day the way they've already been doing.

 

Lucky for our Country the Kentucky Governor and Virginia state legislature results yesterday indicate, we'll be voting Trump out of office in a year even after the Senate fails to fulfil it's constitutionally mandated duty of being truly objective jurors in an impeachment trial.

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Jesus it's still nuts over here.

 

This is so much bigger than the SUMMARY (not transcript) of that phone call at this point.

 

Here is what I will give all of you: the other day I either read or heard an interview with a rabid Trump supporter and it really stuck with me and really made me think about this place. When asked DIRECTLY if her opinion on the impeachment inquiry had changed when the reporter informed her that Colonel Vindman's testimony--from someone who listened DIRECTLY to the call--revealed that the SUMMARY of that phone call left out key words and phrases like "Burisma" (directly and clearly tying this to Biden and his son, which seemed to somehow be in question), she said "No." When the reporter or interviewer asked why, she said, and I paraphrase because I can't remember where I saw or read it, "Who can I really trust? There are 2 sets of facts. You present your set of facts and I get my own."

 

Folks, there's only one set of facts.

 

 

You're really going to argue there's "only one set of facts," and it's the set that's been selectively leaked from secret closed-door hearings and been presented in a way that is a classic example of the "begging the question" fallacy?  

 

I mean...I know you're racist, but I never knew you were this acutely stupid, too.  You haven't been presented any facts yet.

[njbuff]

Like I have said.........

 

I ain’t a leftie or a rightie and I didn’t vote for Trump..............

 

but if you can’t see what this whole impeachment nonsense, whistleblower, quid pro quo, Russian collusion delusion is truly all about.........

 

then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

Just because your hatred for Trump causes you brain damage, it’s nowhere near reason enough to impeach him.

 

Is the left full of mentally ill Richard Goldstein’s or am I missing something?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

50 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Jesus it's still nuts over here.

 

This is so much bigger than the SUMMARY (not transcript) of that phone call at this point.

 

Here is what I will give all of you: the other day I either read or heard an interview with a rabid Trump supporter and it really stuck with me and really made me think about this place. When asked DIRECTLY if her opinion on the impeachment inquiry had changed when the reporter informed her that Colonel Vindman's testimony--from someone who listened DIRECTLY to the call--revealed that the SUMMARY of that phone call left out key words and phrases like "Burisma" (directly and clearly tying this to Biden and his son, which seemed to somehow be in question), she said "No." When the reporter or interviewer asked why, she said, and I paraphrase because I can't remember where I saw or read it, "Who can I really trust? There are 2 sets of facts. You present your set of facts and I get my own."

 

Folks, there's only one set of facts.

 

Get out of the rabbit hole that is Twitter.

 

At this point you've had testimony from multiple highly respected people--Taylor, Vindman, Volkner-- who corroborate the quid pro quo and idiots like Sondland who lied and have come back to change their testimony.

 

Sadly, we're in a Twitter world, so I guarantee Congressional Republicans stick with Trump til the end no matter what and Senate republicans likely do the same.

 

And they're going to move the goalposts every other day the way they've already been doing.

 

Lucky for our Country the Kentucky Governor and Virginia state legislature results yesterday indicate, we'll be voting Trump out of office in a year even after the Senate fails to fulfil it's constitutionally mandated duty of being truly objective jurors in an impeachment trial.

Holy cow! 
 

I really had no idea you had these types of investigative chops. You’ve laid out a pretty compelling case.  You read, heard or received a telegram about someone purporting to be a Trump supporter continuing to be a Trump supporter even after someone else asked them a pointed and leading question dealing with their interpretation of a—and this is priceless—transcript of several hours of one-sided closed door testimony from a career bureaucrat?

 

 It’s like I know someone who dated someone who rode on a bus with someone who’s uncle was the Uber driver to a guy who’s  the cousin of someone in the room. I have the chills. 

[transplantbillsfan]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Holy cow! 
 

I really had no idea you had these types of investigative chops. You’ve laid out a pretty compelling case.  You read, heard or received a telegram about someone purporting to be a Trump supporter continuing to be a Trump supporter even after someone else asked them a pointed and leading question dealing with their interpretation of a—and this is priceless—transcript of several hours of one-sided closed door testimony from a career bureaucrat?

 

 It’s like I know someone who dated someone who rode on a bus with someone who’s uncle was the Uber driver to a guy who’s  the cousin of someone in the room. I have the chills. 

 

And down the rabbit hole you will all continue to fall...

[transplantbillsfan]

 

[bbb]

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Lucky for our Country the Kentucky Governor and Virginia state legislature results yesterday indicate, we'll be voting Trump out of office in a year even after the Senate fails to fulfil it's constitutionally mandated duty of being truly objective jurors in an impeachment trial.

 

Meanwhile, every other statewide office in Kentucky went Republican, including the AG, who becomes the first Black AG in Kentucky history.  

[Deranged Rhino]

51 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

[Hedge]

9 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment
 

Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."
 

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president."
 

Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid also assured his Twitter followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place," referring to outgoing Trump administration employees.
 

</snip>

 

Hmm.

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Trump is brilliant with PR, I've always given him that.

 

Own every single one of your indiscretions to the masses, present those indiscretions as perfectly acceptable, and cast doubt.

 

The ignorant, lazy and loyal will believe him or just not care enough to fact check--ignorant and lazy--and it'll cast just enough doubt publicly where the argument won't hurt him long term.

 

I know you're loyal.

 

You're spewing his words back to me as though they carry equal weight to the sourced Washington Post.

 

Wake up!!! You're being lied to!!!

[Teddy KGB]

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Trump is brilliant with PR, I've always given him that.

 

Own every single one of your indiscretions to the masses, present those indiscretions as perfectly acceptable, and cast doubt.

 

The ignorant, lazy and loyal will believe him or just not care enough to fact check--ignorant and lazy--and it'll cast just enough doubt publicly where the argument won't hurt him long term.

 

I know you're loyal.

 

You're spewing his words back to me as though they carry equal weight to the sourced Washington Post.

 

Wake up!!! You're being lied to!!!

 

Says the guy who quotes the WAPO ??‍♂️??‍♂️??‍♂️

[Deranged Rhino]

39 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Says the guy who quotes the WAPO ??‍♂️??‍♂️??‍♂️

 

It’s amazing, isn’t it?  

 

You can’t help those who won’t think for themselves. But he’s gonna love the avatar I choose for him in a little less than a year from now. 

[Warren Zevon]

8 hours ago, DC Tom said:

selectively leaked from secret closed-door hearings

 

[Warren Zevon]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

[Tiberius]

Even Bill Barr is refusing to hold his nose and defend this president! Hillary has obviously gotten to

him! 

 

 

Trump wanted Barr to hold news conference saying the president broke no laws in call with Ukrainian leader

 

 

Attorney General William P. Barr, left, and President Trump before Trump signed an executive order on Oct. 28 creating a commission to study law enforcement and justice at the International Association of Chiefs of Police Convention. (Charles Rex Arbogast/AP)

By 

Matt Zapotosky, 

Josh Dawsey and 

Carol D. Leonnig 

November 6, 2019 at 8:02:41 p.m. EST

President Trump wanted Attorney General William P. Barr to hold a news conference declaring that the commander in chief had broken no laws during a phone call in which he pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a political rival, though Barr ultimately declined to do so, people familiar with the matter said.

The request from Trump traveled from the president to other White House officials and eventually to the Justice Department. The president has mentioned Barr’s demurral to associates in recent weeks, saying he wished Barr would have held the news conference, Trump advisers say.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

And down the rabbit hole you will all continue to fall...

It's roomier than you would think. Amazon delivers, too. No Starbucks, which is odd. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

It's interesting you posted this. My wife had NBC on today and the reported story was headlined "BARR REFUSES TRUMP REQUEST" or something similar. The reporter spoke factually that the WaPo reported that  "sources" reported that Trump requested a press conference. It took the entirety of the 3 or 4 minute segment for the NBC guy to state that the WH called it bs, and that they could not independently verify the story. The reporter also said the WH "tried to downplay the notion that there was any tension between the Trump and Barr.".

 

Isn't a more balanced version of the story that there's a rumor that all this happened? Why include a large banner headline that reports as fact something that can never be verified? In fact, isn't the real story that NBC is reporting an unsubstiated rumor about their political enemy, using the unsubstantiated rumor of another media source, declaring it as fact in a headline, but weasle-wording it at the end for plausible deniability? 

 

This type of story about a school budget battle wouldn't pass muster in a local Pennysaver story in Des Moines, would it? You talk about rabbit holes while you're basically posting a National Enquirer story?