Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[Sam]

One allegation of the whistleblower complaint that has been confirmed by anonymous WH sources in the media regards the administration's misuse of classification systems to hide presidential communications that were seen as potentially harmful to the President.

Welp

[rogue06]

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

Sorry, but it wasn't even close. That's why you had one Democrat senator, Richard Blumenthal (D - Vt.), declaring it didn't matter to him if there were no threats or quid pro quo. That's why you have Adam Schiff (D -Calif) feeling it necessary to manufacture a fake conversation between Trump and Zelansky that better fit the narrative since the real one didn't. That's why you now have folks attacking the transcription process. None of this would be necessary if the actual conversation matched up to what the gossip claimed.

[Charles]

Sorry, but it wasn't even close. That's why you had one Democrat senator, Richard Blumenthal (D - Vt.), declaring it didn't matter to him if there were no threats or quid pro quo. That's why you have Adam Schiff (D -Calif) feeling it necessary to manufacture a fake conversation between Trump and Zelansky that better fit the narrative since the real one didn't. That's why you now have folks attacking the transcription process. None of this would be necessary if the actual conversation matched up to what the gossip claimed.

And yet what you provide is indications at best. Why don't you just prove that they don't match up? It would be so much easier. Of course not as easy as it is to just simply claim they don't match up.

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry, but it wasn't even close. That's why you had one Democrat senator, Richard Blumenthal (D - Vt.), declaring it didn't matter to him if there were no threats or quid pro quo. That's why you have Adam Schiff (D -Calif) feeling it necessary to manufacture a fake conversation between Trump and Zelansky that better fit the narrative since the real one didn't. That's why you now have folks attacking the transcription process. None of this would be necessary if the actual conversation matched up to what the gossip claimed.

Right. And that is why the White House stashed this conversation without anything 'secret' in it from a national security perspective on a secret server and severely limited access to it - because it was a nothing.

That is the reality check here rogue. They KNEW exactly what he had just done. And they tried to hide it.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

...confirmed by anonymous WH sources...

John Solomon names names, talks to sources on the record, and provides original documents to support his reporting, and you dismiss him as an "opinion columnist". The Washington (Com)Post deals in "sources say" rumors that could easily be the writer literally just making stuff up, and you're ready to believe everything they say.

I mean, really?

[Mountain Man]

"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.

More information:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...d-from-others/

Note the timing of this change (Aug 2019) and when the "whistleblower" came forward. If you don't smell a coordinated setup then you're naive.

[Mountain Man]

Also...

Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the whistleblower process. Fleitz says the Ukraine call whistleblower is likely driven by political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing it.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...-schiff-staff/

[Sam]

John Solomon names names, talks to sources on the record, and provides original documents to support his reporting, and you dismiss him as an "opinion columnist". The Washington (Com)Post deals in "sources say" rumors that could easily be the writer literally just making stuff up, and you're ready to believe everything they say.

I mean, really?

The paucity of John Solomon's "reporting" lies in the integrity of the man, not in the nature of anonymous sources.

It's why John Solomon, an "investigative reporter", has been regulated to the opinion section of a notorious DC rag known for publishing lobbyist spin pieces without proper disclosure.

--Sam

[Sam]

More information:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...d-from-others/

Note the timing of this change (Aug 2019) and when the "whistleblower" came forward. If you don't smell a coordinated setup then you're naive.

Taps glass.

<ahem>

[Mountain Man]

Taps glass.

<ahem>

There is obviously a significant difference between someone who possesses "indirect evidence", and someone like this whistleblower dealing in idle rumors and secondhand-at-best hearsay. Why else would they need to change the rules to explicitly allow "heard from others" as a legitimate source of a complaint?

One respondent to the Twitter thread you linked to shrewdly asks:

"Would indirect evidence include verbal hearsay of not strictly fact, but whatever fact that was accompanied by personal conjecture in regard to motivation?"

Like I said, if you don't smell a coordinated setup then you're naive -- or possibly willfully ignorant.

[oxmixmudd]

More information:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...d-from-others/

Note the timing of this change (Aug 2019) and when the "whistleblower" came forward. If you don't smell a coordinated setup then you're naive.

Wow, really reaching now ....

[Teallaura]

And, lost in the storm, our little Sixth Amendment makes it home...


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



Source



*emphasis mine

[Mountain Man]

And, lost in the storm, our little Sixth Amendment makes it home...


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



Source



*emphasis mine

I think the rub here is that a whistleblower complaint is not legal evidence in and of itself but simply a statement saying, "Maybe you should look into this." Whether or not the testimony of the whistleblower is admissible as evidence is a different matter, especially in a case like this where it's 100% rumors and office gossip. As I said earlier, no honest judge in America would accept testimony that starts with, "Well, this guy I know says..."

[oxmixmudd]

There is obviously a significant difference between someone who possesses "indirect evidence", and someone like this whistleblower dealing in idle rumors and secondhand-at-best hearsay. Why else would they need to change the rules to explicitly allow "heard from others" as a legitimate source of a complaint?

One respondent to the Twitter thread you linked to shrewdly asks:

"Would indirect evidence include verbal hearsay of not strictly fact, but whatever fact that was accompanied by personal conjecture in regard to motivation?"

Like I said, if you don't smell a coordinated setup then you're naive -- or possibly willfully ignorant.

The sound of mm's big conspiracy cracking and crumbling ...

Jim

[Teallaura]

I think the rub here is that a whistleblower complaint is not legal evidence in and of itself but simply a statement saying, "Maybe you should look into this." Whether or not the testimony of the whistleblower is admissible as evidence is a different matter, especially in a case like this where it's 100% rumors and office gossip. As I said earlier, no honest judge in America would accept testimony that starts with, "Well, this guy I know says..."

Impeachment is an odd duck legally - my point is the American people aren't gonna be happy without direct evidence and actual witness testimony. These 'unnamed sources' will have to be named and be on the public record - and soon.