Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[Mountain Man]

John Kasich, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Never Trumper was on CNN today saying that (aside from the media) "nobody [is] talking about this." That the public is reacting with a massive yawn -- which I seriously doubt is the reaction that the Democrats/MSM either expected or want.

The Democrats have been desperately trying to keep the public at a fevered pitch about all things Trump, but I think fatigue set in right around the time Mueller's investigation ended with a whimper rather than the deafening bang that the Democrats promised.

[Teallaura]

Bidengate expands:

Source: The Hill

In a newly sworn affidavit

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[oxmixmudd]

You have evidence that military aid was held as collateral to the investigation into Hunter Biden continuing? Perhaps you should email your evidence to Mdm. Pelosi.

There most certainly is evidence. It's part of what the whistle-blower complaint is about.

What you (and others) are forgetting is that this person that blew the whistle knows the people that gave him the information. And it is their testimony, under oath, under a subpoena, that will determine the outcome of this. This is not 'one person', this is data gathered and pieced together from multiple sources into a well written and logical accounting of what was happening. If what he was told is backed up by the eyewitnesses that told him, then this is a very big deal.

Jim

[rogue06]

What I said before about good citizens still applies. At some point back in time, none of y'all would've tolerated the idea of a President strong-arming a foreign government into launching partisan investigations against his opponents in exchange for military aid. Somewhere along the way, people got sick and addled and let their civic character go to pot. Now we've got a President, already implicated in numerous felonies perpetuated over the course of his campaign and term, enlisting the United States Department of Justice and State Department to help his new "personal attorney" commit felonies to help his election campaign (since the old one's in prison for felonies committed at the President's direction during the last campaign).

Being a good citizen means a lot of different things to different people. But there are boundaries, fence lines that good citizens don't go past.

--Sam

Seeing this as "strong-arming" requires that you see it through particularly colored lenses.


Having said that, depending on the situation, I would expect a president to engage in strong arming.

[oxmixmudd]

Seeing this as "strong-arming" requires that you see it through particularly colored lenses.


Having said that, depending on the situation, I would expect a president to engage in strong arming.

A president strong arming for personal gain, in this case to make a foreign state participate in attempting to takedown a political opponent, is illegal.

And again, are you really willing to look the other way when you know that is exactly what he was doing 'asking fo a favor'

Come on, all of you, you know darn good and well what he was doing. And you would be going on about 24/7 if this were Obama or Hillary.

Jim

[rogue06]

There most certainly is evidence. It's part of what the whistle-blower complaint is about.

What you (and others) are forgetting is that this person that blew the whistle knows the people that gave him the information. And it is their testimony, under oath, under a subpoena, that will determine the outcome of this. This is not 'one person', this is data gathered and pieced together from multiple sources into a well written and logical accounting of what was happening. If what he was told is backed up by the eyewitnesses that told him, then this is a very big deal.

Jim

Considering how the actual conversation between Trump and Zelensky didn't match up to what the whistleblower claimed, it is fair to say that at least presently his/her veracity and credibility are questionable.

[oxmixmudd]

Considering how the actual conversation between Trump and Zelensky didn't match up to what the whistleblower claimed, it is fair to say that at least presently his/her veracity and credibility are questionable.

It did, in fact, match up. That you can't see that is just the 'pretend' naivete kicking in. I know you guys are not as naive as you are pretending to be - It would be nice you could own up to it.


Jim

[JimL]

Admitting a quid-pro-quo There's hope for you yet, Jimmy...

Wrong. The U.S. or Biden wasn't getting any thing in return, they simply weren't going to give a corrupt government finacial aid. Get the difference? Probably not!

Sure it is. He was investigating Biden's son. At a MINIMUM, that is a conflict of interest, and Biden should have recused himself in the discussions. Either way, Biden is done. There are more accusations against his other kids too.

Wrong. It wasn't Bidens decision to make, it was Obama's decision, and Biden was simply carrying out his bosses orders when explaining the situation to the Ukrainian government. What do you think, Biden just made that decision on his own and went to Ukraine on his own. Whether Bidens son is guilty of anything is irrelevant, and there is no evidence that he was. It should be blatantly obvious to you what Trump is up to here in the midst of a presidential campaign to all of a sudden extort the Ukrainian President to manufacture dirt on Biden, but apparently your bias is overpowering you.

[JimL]

Bidengate expands:

Source: The Hill

In a newly sworn affidavit

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Right, and you would take the begrudged Shokins newly come up with claim that someone told him Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. Shokin is corrupt himself and everybody knew it which is why the western democracies including the IMF wanted him gone. Again, whether Biden was unhappy about it, or whether his son was guilty of anything, has nothing to do with why the entire Democratic west wanted Shokin gone. Besides, stop playing dumb, Tea, you know what Trump was up to here.

[Teallaura]

Right, and you would take the begrudged Shokins newly come up with claim that someone told him Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. Shokin is corrupt himself and everybody knew it which is why the western democracies including the IMF wanted him gone. Again, whether Biden was unhappy about it, or whether his son was guilty of anything, has nothing to do with why the entire Democratic west wanted Shokin gone. Besides, stop playing dumb, Tea, you know what Trump was up to here.

Rumors in a complaint with multiple errors versus sworn affidavit? Affidavit wins every time.

[Sam]

Seeing this as "strong-arming" requires that you see it through particularly colored lenses.


Having said that, depending on the situation, I would expect a president to engage in strong arming.

Easy way to solve this:

Was >$300 million in military aid to Ukraine withheld along what we'd consider normal channels? Like, there's a clear rationale at State Dept, clear memos and directions at OMB to resolve whatever is preventing the funding from being delivered? Did State/OMB officials know what's going on?

If not, who directed the funds be withheld and why? Did the person directing the funds to be withheld use proper channels and direct a resolution along proper channels?

Specifically, did the President of the United States, having been repeatedly frustrated in his attempt to get a major political rival investigated since 2018, direct military aid to Ukraine to be withheld as a means of leverage, explicit or implicit, shortly before his direct conversation with the Ukrainian president, where he asked the "favor" of opening investigations regarding his former and future political opponents?

Do we expect a president to so abuse the power of his office for personal or political gain, under the guise that it's just aggressive diplomacy?

Good citizens ask those questions, demand clear answers, and punish public officials who abuse their offices in such flagrant and dangerous ways.

--Sam

[NorrinRadd]

It's reality Sam. This person, as evidenced by their complaint, is not legally a whistleblower. He is dealing in hearsay and innuendo. Every bit of his testimony would be dismissed in a court of law.

"Special Report" on FNC tonight reported that sometime in the recent past, the official rules were discreetly -- clandestinely? -- changed to allow third-parties to be "legitimate" whistle-blowers.

[mikewhitney]

There most certainly is evidence. It's part of what the whistle-blower complaint is about.

What you (and others) are forgetting is that this person that blew the whistle knows the people that gave him the information. And it is their testimony, under oath, under a subpoena, that will determine the outcome of this. This is not 'one person', this is data gathered and pieced together from multiple sources into a well written and logical accounting of what was happening. If what he was told is backed up by the eyewitnesses that told him, then this is a very big deal.

Jim

The questions under oath on this subject matter should be really interesting.

I suspect they will call in members of the White House staff asking questions like:
1. Did you hear anything that Trump said about his taxes?
2. Do you know any possible crimes or suspicious behavior by Trump?
3. Can you list several people that might have dirt on Trump?
4. Has Trump ever said anything that might make someone feel uncomfortable?
5. Has Trump proposed any strategy against us making this nation into a communist-controlled government?


After these and many more questions, the people will start to ask, "Wasn't this supposed to be about Biden and the Ukraine?"

[Sam]

The questions under oath on this subject matter should be really interesting.

I suspect they will call in members of the White House staff asking questions like:
1. Did you hear anything that Trump said about his taxes?
2. Do you know any possible crimes or suspicious behavior by Trump?
3. Can you list several people that might have dirt on Trump?
4. Has Trump ever said anything that might make someone feel uncomfortable?
5. Has Trump proposed any strategy against us making this nation into a communist-controlled government?


After these and many more questions, the people will start to ask, "Wasn't this supposed to be about Biden and the Ukraine?"

I imagine it will be quite more focused on documentary evidence and direct testimony by State and OMB officials.

[Sam]

"Special Report" on FNC tonight reported that sometime in the recent past, the official rules were discreetly -- clandestinely? -- changed to allow third-parties to be "legitimate" whistle-blowers.

Rules weren't changed; nothing in ICWPA requires firsthand knowledge for a complaint. The 2017 ICIG template even includes the language "I am a discloser with direct or indirect evidence in the above-captioned disclosure of a Title 50 alleged urgent concern."

--Sam