Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[Sam]

New information indicates that Ukrainian officials were in the process of reopening the investigation into Burisma and its board members, including Hunter Biden, as early as February 2019, before Zelinsky had been elected. If true, this would destroy the entire Democrat narrative.

This isn't new information; it was widely reported that Giuliani was meeting with and leaning on Lutsenko -- possibly as early as 2017 -- to investigate the Bidens through Burisma Group (in addition to stonewalling the Mueller investigation and allowing Kilimik to flee to Russia) and Zelinskyy shut it down. Which is why Trump is complaining about Zelinskyy's termination of the "prosecutor who was very good" in the July 25 call.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

This isn't new information; it was widely reported that Giuliani was meeting with and leaning on Lutsenko -- possibly as early as 2017 -- to investigate the Bidens through Burisma Group (in addition to stonewalling the Mueller investigation and allowing Kilimik to flee to Russia) and Zelinskyy shut it down. Which is why Trump is complaining about Zelinskyy's termination of the "prosecutor who was very good" in the July 25 call.

That's a rather... creative... interpretation.

In fact, Giuliani started investigating independently because he caught wind that Federal prosecutors were stonewalling Ukrainian officials even to the point of ignoring hand delivered evidence. When Ukraine officials made claims in the press that Giuliani was planning to meet with them (it's unclear whether he really was), he immediately backed away because he didn't want his investigation to turn political. Giuliani only reentered the picture after Ukraine officials, thinking they had damaged their US relationship, contacted the State Department who in turn contacted Giuliani. So no "leaning" on anybody. This is something Ukraine officials were already doing before Giuliani even began investigating.

It's all reported here with on-the-record sources and links to independent coverage in other publications:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...erture-to-rudy

Ya gotta keep up with the facts, Sam, or you'll fall victim to wild eyed conspiracy theories!

[Mountain Man]

In the latest twist, it's being reported that lawyers are fighting to keep the "whistleblower's" identity secret to the point that they are negotiating with the House for him to submit answers anonymously in writing instead of appearing in person to testify.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...al-appearance/

If they can railroad the highest elected official in the United States with a secret legal proceeding where he doesn't even get to learn the identity of his accuser, then what's to stop them from doing it to you?

[seer]

If they can railroad the highest elected official in the United States with a secret legal proceeding where he doesn't even get to learn the identity of his accuser, then what's to stop them from doing it to you?

Full on Star Chamber!

[MaxVel]

You're only objecting to secret witnesses testifying against you because you have something to hide!

[Teallaura]

You're only objecting to secret witnesses testifying against you because you have something to hide!

The cops called, something about an anonymous witness telling them about what's under your bed and you need to report to Sing Sing on Monday...

[lilpixieofterror]

The cops called, something about an anonymous witness telling them about what's under your bed and you need to report to Sing Sing on Monday...

[Sam]

Folks have to be aware, at this point, that the whistleblower isn't someone saying that Trump confessed to them in secret: there are named witnesses, there are documents, there are discernible facts (did the Trump administration misuse the NSC code word server or not?). The whistleblower's identity is known to the ICIG.

You can't construct a sensible narrative where this is some cloak and dagger attempt to smear Trump with an anonymous, unfalsifiable source. It's simply bogus.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

Folks have to be aware, at this point, that the whistleblower isn't someone saying that Trump confessed to them in secret: there are named witnesses, there are documents, there are discernible facts (did the Trump administration misuse the NSC code word server or not?). The whistleblower's identity is known to the ICIG.

You can't construct a sensible narrative where this is some cloak and dagger attempt to smear Trump with an anonymous, unfalsifiable source. It's simply bogus.

--Sam

Than why do we not know the name of the whistleblower and why are proceedings happening behind closed doors, without a vote on the house floor? Your apologetics, for Democrats, is truly touching.

[firstfloor]

Well done Marie Yovanovitch. Pompeo proves what a low life he is.

[Sam]

Than why do we not know the name of the whistleblower and why are proceedings happening behind closed doors, without a vote on the house floor? Your apologetics, for Democrats, is truly touching.

Maybe if you find yourself on the side of the President who calls the whistleblower a "spy" and has already launched numerous retaliatory campaigns against career officials who have had a part in uncovering his corrupt acts and you don't think this whistleblower has a legitimate reason to remain anonymous to the President ... well, then you have to ask yourself "Are we the baddies?"

--Sam

[JimL]

Than why do we not know the name of the whistleblower and why are proceedings happening behind closed doors, without a vote on the house floor? Your apologetics, for Democrats, is truly touching.

Whistleblowers aren't named in order that they be protected from retaliation, not to mention from whack jobs like many Trump supporters. Whistleblowers simply give the evidence to the IG who himself determines the necessity of the need to investigate, which he does. It is the IG, not the whistlblower, who, finding the info evidential, turns it over to Congress, not the whistleblower. And the vote on the floor will come when the articles of impeachment are determined. That's how it works.

[oxmixmudd]

Than why do we not know the name of the whistleblower and why are proceedings happening behind closed doors, without a vote on the house floor? Your apologetics, for Democrats, is truly touching.

Because whistle-blowers are protected from retaliation through anonymity. That protection is necessary to make it possible for whistle-blowers to exist. It really isn't all that complicated. And this is not democrat/republican. This is just how these laws work.

And if you doubt the need for such laws, then all you need to do is consider what happens to people who blow the whistle on powerful people where their identifies are well known.

say - journalists in Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lled_in_Russia

or consider this article on whistle-blowing:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellypo.../#7bff2ec36a9b

consider:

Source: above

Years later, I learned that the Space Shuttle Challenger could have been prevented if only the whistle-blower was heard. Whistle-blower Roger Boisjoly tried to warn NASA the night before the launch that the O rings would fail if the shuttle was launched in cold weather. No one listened. After Boisjoly testified to the Rogers Commission about his research findings, Boisjoly was shunned by his colleagues and faced extreme retaliation. He later resigned from his company due to the pressure of being labeled a whistle-blower. Boisjoly was trying to save 7 innocent lives. Should he be classified as a snitch?

© Copyright Original Source

or perhaps this from the same article:



People like Donald Trump WILL retaliate against anyone that sheds a bad light on him, let alone someone that actually endangers him by exposing his private misdeeds. And as president, he has nearly limitless resources in terms of what form that retaliation could take. And so this person needs our protection and he needs his anonymity. The facts will be investigated, and Trump will only have anything to worry about if what the whistle-blower has said turns out to be true.



Jim

[Mountain Man]

You're only objecting to secret witnesses testifying against you because you have something to hide!

It's a classic kafkatrap. The only way out is to concede one's guilt!

[Mountain Man]

Than why do we not know the name of the whistleblower and why are proceedings happening behind closed doors, without a vote on the house floor? Your apologetics, for Democrats, is truly touching.

Bingo... it's the folks cheering on this secretive behind-closed-doors kangaroo court proceeding that cause me the greatest concern for the future of our country.