What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (1 Viewer)

So I went to bed last night seeing this headline from Fox News “Sondland to testify that there was no quid pro quo.” I thought, well finally here’s something that’s good for Trump; his defenders will jump on this for sure.” 

Now I wake up to learn that Sondland only said that because Trump told him to and that actually there was a quid pro quo? Ruh roh!

 
We have already been further down this slope when Clinton was out renting stays in the Lincoln Bedroom for bigtime political contribution.  
Two wrongs make a right?

About a decade ago, I came to the conclusion that Bill Clinton should have been removed from office. I was 17 or 18 when that happened, so I wasn't paying much attention.

Just because one Congress didn't do it's job 20 years ago doesn't mean this Congress can't do it now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Remember when the story going around this board was that Podesta and a world famous performance artist were literally cooking and eating the blood of children? 
He’s not totally wrong. 
I should have been more specific in my "dude" direction. He's still beating the Hillary drum and lamenting it. It's over, man.

But yes, the scandals and unfounded claims against her did indeed hurt her. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has anyone told him that if he sues, they get to take his deposition and make him testify under oath?
Actual conversation between me and my Trump-supporting golf buddy:

Trumpguy: I can't wait for Trump to get impeached!
Me: Why? I thought you liked him.
Trumpguy: I do! And when he testifies during the impeachment, he'll be able to reveal all the dirt that he's got on Biden!
Me: Um...couldn't he just do that now?
Trumpguy: [pause] Uhhhhhhhh......I guess so. [pause] But it'll have a bigger impact when he does it during the impeachment trial, because he'll be under oath. So you know it's true.
Me: O-kay....but aren't you worried about him getting caught telling a lie under oath?
Trumpguy: Nah, everyone already knows that he lies. The Republican senators would never vote to convict him for only lying.

 
Ugh. This is painful to read.

‘The Beacon Has Gone Out’: What Trump and Giuliani Have Wrought
Once upon a time, we spread ideals of democracy and rule of law. Now? We send Rudy.
By Michelle Goldberg
Oct. 12, 2019

KIEV, Ukraine — In 2014, Ukraine’s wildly corrupt president, Viktor Yanukovych, fled to Russia after mass protests on the Maidan, Kiev’s central square. During what Ukrainians call the Revolution of Dignity, police snipers killed dozens of demonstrators. In the revolution’s aftermath, a number of young idealists decided to plunge into politics, hoping to reform their troubled country from the inside. One of them was Serhiy Leshchenko, at the time perhaps the country’s most famous investigative journalist.

The American political scientist Francis Fukuyama had encouraged Leshchenko and some of his friends to run for Parliament. He’d met Leshchenko in 2013, when the journalist took part in a three-week summer course run by Fukuyama at Stanford that aims to teach activists from around the world about building democratic institutions. “After the Maidan revolution, I thought that it was particularly important that all these people in civil society actually go into the government,” Fukuyama said.

Many of them did. That October, Leshchenko, a lanky, bearded hipster with a passion for rave culture, became part of a cadre of Western-oriented newcomers elected to Parliament, even as he continued to work as a journalist exposing corruption. This year, after Volodymyr Zelensky won the presidential election, Leshchenko advised him during the transition.

Then Rudy Giuliani began attacking Leshchenko as a conspirator against America.

In 2016, Leshchenko had helped expose the “black ledger,” an accounting book of hundreds of pages found in Yanukovych’s former party headquarters. Among its many entries, it showed $12.7 million in secret payments to Paul Manafort. At the time, Manafort was running Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, but before that, he was one of Yanukovych’s most important advisers.

One of the reasons Manafort is in federal prison is that he failed to disclose or pay taxes on millions of dollars from Ukraine. But if you believe Giuliani, the black ledger was part of a plot to damage Trump.

During a Fox News appearance on May 10, Giuliani described the ledger as a “falsely created book” and Leshchenko as part of a group of “enemies of the president, in some cases enemies of the United States.” Last month, in an epic, ranting interview on CNN, he accused Ukraine’s leading anti-corruption organization, the Anti-Corruption Action Center, or AntAC, of developing “all of the dirty information that ended up being a false document that was created in order to incriminate Manafort.”

In Giuliani’s fevered alternative reality, Ukraine’s most stalwart foes of corruption are actually corruption’s embodiment. Deeply compromised figures with vendettas against the activists — particularly the ex-prosecutors Viktor Shokin and Yuriy Lutsenko — are transformed into heroes.

This addled, through-the-looking glass fantasy came to drive American foreign policy in Ukraine. Trump withdrew the American ambassador to the country, Marie Yovanovitch, whom reformers saw as their champion. He withheld military aid that Ukraine desperately needed, while asking Zelensky to do him a “favor” and investigate deranged fictions about Ukrainian interference in American elections, as well as Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Given how much Ukraine depends on American support, Giuliani’s smears made it politically impossible for Leshchenko, who left Parliament in August, to continue advising Zelensky. Now, with Ukraine at the center of a world-historical international scandal, he is stupefied to find himself defamed by powerful forces in the United States, once the world’s strongest backer of those fighting for democracy in his country.

“I could imagine that maybe some Ukrainian prosecutors will create a fake case against me, or some criminals will attack me, or I could be attacked by trolls on social media,” Leshchenko told me when I met him in a Kiev cafe. “But I never imagined before that my real problems will appear because of the statement of the personal attorney of the American president.”

If America can be said to have a foreign policy at this debased stage of the Trump administration, it mostly consists of sucking up to strongmen while betraying everyone who ever believed in America’s putative ideals. Trump has given Turkey his blessing to assault the Syrian Kurds, America’s crucial allies against ISIS. In June, he reportedly promised China that he wouldn’t speak out in favor of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong, some of whom have been carrying American flags, as long as trade talks progressed.

Here in Ukraine, a country locked in a proxy war with Russia, coping with a deluge of disinformation and propaganda and struggling to transcend a history of corruption, reformers are trying to figure out what it means when the American president sides against them.

Pro-Western reformers, the Ukrainian philosopher Volodymyr Yermolenko told me, had seen the United States as a “a perfect democracy functioning very well,” with an admirable system of checks and balances. “And now this image is crumbling and that’s very dangerous.”

The Ukrainians I spoke to aren’t naïve; they understand that America, like any other country, generally acts from self-interest rather than high principle. But there was a time when America at least viewed the projection of democratic values as being in its self-interest. That gave liberals in countries like Ukraine leverage against recalcitrant officials.

“The majority of the reforms, especially on anti-corruption, were passed because there was a very strong demand from civil society, and there was the I.M.F. and the U.S. Embassy pushing it hard,” said Oleksandra Ustinova, a former board member of AntAC who was elected to Parliament this year.

The U.S. also provided a degree of protection to local activists and journalists. When Lutsenko was prosecutor general in Ukraine — a position roughly equivalent to our attorney general — he would, said Ustinova, harass anti-corruption campaigners with spurious criminal investigations. “The U.S. ambassador and the E.U. ambassador were going out publicly saying you cannot do this,” Ustinova said.

Now that’s all changed. As The New York Times reported, after Trump recalled the U.S. ambassador, Lutsenko gloated to the head of AntAC that he had “eliminated your roof,” using Russian mafia slang for guardian.

“We’ve been exporting our corruption to them, rather than trying to export good governance,” said Fukuyama.

When he said that, Fukuyama may not have known how right he was. A few hours after I met Leshchenko, news broke that two Ukrainian-born clients of Giuliani, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, had been arrested on charges of campaign finance crimes as they were preparing to leave the United States with one-way tickets.

According to an indictment, the two “sought to advance their personal financial interests and the political interests of at least one Ukrainian government official with whom they were working.” (In one of those preposterously on-the-nose details that make the Trump era feel like a computer simulation on the fritz, Parnas had a company called Fraud Guarantee.)

As soon as news of the indictment broke, I messaged Leshchenko, who guessed that the unnamed Ukrainian official was Lutsenko. It was a natural assumption; it had already been reported that Parnas and Fruman connected Giuliani with Lutsenko, who had been feeding Trump’s lawyer conspiracy theories about the journalist, the former American ambassador and Joe Biden.

Sure enough, on Saturday NBC News reported that Lutsenko was the official in the indictment. Yovanovitch might have been referring to Lutsenko when she said, in her Friday congressional testimony, that “individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.”

Thanks to Giuliani’s escapades, the domestic grudges of a crooked Ukrainian prosecutor have blossomed into a scandal that’s likely to lead to the impeachment of an American president. Federal prosecutors are now investigating whether Giuliani himself broke the law.

Lutsenko has since left Ukraine for London, and Ukrainian authorities have opened a criminal case against him for allegedly abusing his authority in an unrelated matter. In a recent interview, he told reporters for The Times that in speaking to Giuliani, he sought to tell Trump’s lawyer what he wanted to hear. “I understood very well what would interest them,” Lutsenko said, adding, “I have 23 years in politics.”

He should be seen as wholly discredited, but in our polarized, frenzied media environment, lies never really go away. Trump’s defenders will continue to take Lutsenko’s stories at face value. Worse, long after America has forgotten them, these slanders, which Trump and Giuliani magnified to gargantuan scale, will linger in Ukraine, undermining the people our country once sought to help.

“This smear campaign circulates everywhere: in American media, then in Ukrainian media,” said Leshchenko. Those in Ukraine who want impunity for corruption, he said, can now say, “Look at these anti-corruption activists and journalists and members of Parliament. They are not welcome in the U.S., so don’t listen to them. So it suppresses our reputation here in Ukraine as well.”

Ukrainians are no strangers to post-truth politics. The first time I ever heard the term “fake news” was in 2015, when I learned about the Ukrainian fact-checking organization StopFake. It was created by a group of journalists to push back against the torrents of Russian disinformation sowing chaos in the country’s politics. At the time, it would have been hard to imagine that the United States would soon join Russia as a source of weaponized untruth in Ukraine.

“This is very new, because now it seems it’s not only Russia influencing Ukrainian politics, but Ukraine is also influencing the U.S., and things happening in the U.S. are greatly influencing Ukraine,” Yevhen Fedchenko, one of StopFake’s founders, told me. “So it becomes much more complicated.”

Here’s what’s not complicated. Throughout our history, America has committed many sins against democracy around the world, but we used to be on the right side in Ukraine. Not anymore. As one former U.S. diplomat said to me recently, “The beacon has gone out.” We’re with the oligarchs now.

 
I think you are confusing me with someone who thinks your "everything we've ever done is a war crime" position merits significant conversation. It doesn't to me.

You don't see behind any curtain. I hate to break it to you. Yes war sucks. Innocent people die. And geopolitics is ugly. It would be great if we lived in a world where none of that stuff happened. 

None of that means that a constitutional system put in place by the framers is somehow a coup. Saying that or quoting it is infantile.  Saying or quoting anyone that says this is the attempt to overturn an election has a political voice unworthy of being shared with the general polity. 
This Ukrainegate thing has to be understood within the context of the intelligence community's apparent efforts to tar Trump as a Russian agent.  Taibbi wrote this comment (from this article) which suggests, at the very least, the IC was trying to sabotage him before he even stepped foot in office.  

I can’t stress enough that the Russiagate insanity, and specifically the Steele leak, began before Trump took office. If it was not framing exactly it was certainly manipulation of wrong intelligence, on par with using Chalabi’s tales to start war. There are only three explanations for the January 7, 2017 “intel chiefs” meeting. One, they sincerely believed Trump was a cultivated foreign agent as Steele reported. I don’t buy that this is possible. They had half a year at least to investigate these extremely serious claims. If they were true, leaking to CNN and letting Trump take office is an extremely weak response. Moreover no evidence to substantiate the idea ever surfaced. Two: Steele was on some level genuinely reporting rumors he heard, and the agencies merely waved this dicey intel on to the public via leaks (and gave it gravitas with leaks of their meeting) because it was explosive and expedient, advancing political goals they had. This to me is the most likely explanation. A sub-possibility is Steele was duped by Russian disinformation and the agencies either knew this and waved it through, or weren’t sure and waved it through anyway. Three: the agencies had a direct hand in creating the Steele nonsense. I think this unlikely. It’s what Trump and Giuliani believe, and it’s not completely unsupported, given Steele’s relationship with the FBI and Fusion’s dubious history, but I have a hard time believing such a Dr. Evil narrative absent hard hard evidence. Still, option #2, i.e. cynically using/leaking wrong intel to cripple an incoming president, would be an awesome corruption/meddling story, beyond anything Trump has done.

Call it what you like- I'm not a fan of the word coup, because it implies violence where there is none here- but it is about the intelligence apparatus removing the President from office.  It's always been about that and nothing else.  You don't have to disagree with their endgame here, but you should at least try to understand why it's happening.  It's not about democracy and constitutionality- we know this because they're thoroughly undemocratic and unconstitutional institutions.  We know this because Pelosi never brought impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors on a much bigger scale than the Zelensky phone call.  We know this because the intelligence community regularly wipes its ### with real whistleblowers.

The means themselves may be constitutional, but the ends- unelected spooks attempting yet again to remove a democratically elected President from office- are as undemocratic as it gets.  

 
This Ukrainegate thing has to be understood within the context of the intelligence community's apparent efforts to tar Trump as a Russian agent.  Taibbi wrote this comment (from this article) which suggests, at the very least, the IC was trying to sabotage him before he even stepped foot in office.  

I can’t stress enough that the Russiagate insanity, and specifically the Steele leak, began before Trump took office. If it was not framing exactly it was certainly manipulation of wrong intelligence, on par with using Chalabi’s tales to start war. There are only three explanations for the January 7, 2017 “intel chiefs” meeting. One, they sincerely believed Trump was a cultivated foreign agent as Steele reported. I don’t buy that this is possible. They had half a year at least to investigate these extremely serious claims. If they were true, leaking to CNN and letting Trump take office is an extremely weak response.
What could they have done about it absent of a smoking gun? Also, there had to be the assumption he wasn't going to actually win. Trump being some kind of foreign agent seems far fetched but just looking at what he has said and done publicly, it actually seems like the most simple answer. His behavior and the way he treats different leaders and different countries is difficult to account for otherwise. 

 
Has Trump made any move that hurts Russia during his presidency? Anything on the level of the things he's done that clearly help them, like with Syria?

I kinda thought the Russian asset thing was BS for awhile, but his track record looks like a bunch of moves that help Russia. And hurt the US and it's allies.

 
This Ukrainegate thing has to be understood within the context of the intelligence community's apparent efforts to tar Trump as a Russian agent.  Taibbi wrote this comment (from this article) which suggests, at the very least, the IC was trying to sabotage him before he even stepped foot in office.  

I can’t stress enough that the Russiagate insanity, and specifically the Steele leak, began before Trump took office. If it was not framing exactly it was certainly manipulation of wrong intelligence, on par with using Chalabi’s tales to start war. There are only three explanations for the January 7, 2017 “intel chiefs” meeting. One, they sincerely believed Trump was a cultivated foreign agent as Steele reported. I don’t buy that this is possible. They had half a year at least to investigate these extremely serious claims. If they were true, leaking to CNN and letting Trump take office is an extremely weak response. Moreover no evidence to substantiate the idea ever surfaced. Two: Steele was on some level genuinely reporting rumors he heard, and the agencies merely waved this dicey intel on to the public via leaks (and gave it gravitas with leaks of their meeting) because it was explosive and expedient, advancing political goals they had. This to me is the most likely explanation. A sub-possibility is Steele was duped by Russian disinformation and the agencies either knew this and waved it through, or weren’t sure and waved it through anyway. Three: the agencies had a direct hand in creating the Steele nonsense. I think this unlikely. It’s what Trump and Giuliani believe, and it’s not completely unsupported, given Steele’s relationship with the FBI and Fusion’s dubious history, but I have a hard time believing such a Dr. Evil narrative absent hard hard evidence. Still, option #2, i.e. cynically using/leaking wrong intel to cripple an incoming president, would be an awesome corruption/meddling story, beyond anything Trump has done.

Call it what you like- I'm not a fan of the word coup, because it implies violence where there is none here- but it is about the intelligence apparatus removing the President from office.  It's always been about that and nothing else.  You don't have to disagree with their endgame here, but you should at least try to understand why it's happening.  It's not about democracy and constitutionality- we know this because they're thoroughly undemocratic and unconstitutional institutions.  We know this because Pelosi never brought impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors on a much bigger scale than the Zelensky phone call.  We know this because the intelligence community regularly wipes its ### with real whistleblowers.

The means themselves may be constitutional, but the ends- unelected spooks attempting yet again to remove a democratically elected President from office- are as undemocratic as it gets.  
Ren,

Ask yourself a question just to play devils advocate here.

How would this entire situation look any different than it does now if Trump really did the things he was accused of doing?  If, instead of this being some grand conspiracy by our IC and others, it was solely due to Trumps own decisions and actions.

How would it look different than how events have played out?

 
Has Trump made any move that hurts Russia during his presidency? Anything on the level of the things he's done that clearly help them, like with Syria?

I kinda thought the Russian asset thing was BS for awhile, but his track record looks like a bunch of moves that help Russia. And hurt the US and it's allies.
No duh....

 
Has Trump made any move that hurts Russia during his presidency? Anything on the level of the things he's done that clearly help them, like with Syria?

I kinda thought the Russian asset thing was BS for awhile, but his track record looks like a bunch of moves that help Russia. And hurt the US and it's allies.
Once is an example, two is a coincidence, three is a trend, one-hundred plus is a Russian asset.

 
This is your statement quoting Levin above: Trump is “a corrupt, lying #######.” That is perfectly consistent with what he is accused of. Seems to me that you & Levin & Co are just annoyed hearing of it from the IC and mainstream Dems in a legal and explicitly Constitutional process rather than getting it through a strictly illegal leak/hacked chaos.
It seems to me the intelligence community has just figured out a new way to get out classified information which may be damaging to a politician they don't care for instead of leaking it.  The whistle blower complaint was mostly a bunch of partisan inuendo and heresy.  The only thing concrete was the existence of the summary of the phone call. 

 
It seems to me the intelligence community has just figured out a new way to get out classified information which may be damaging to a politician they don't care for instead of leaking it.  The whistle blower complaint was mostly a bunch of partisan inuendo and heresy.  The only thing concrete was the existence of the summary of the phone call. 
Yeah, all Trump worshipers (and non-supporters like you) consider anything bad said about him to be heresy...I mean that's part of the religion, right? Sometimes they even claim it's hearsay and should be ignored, even if it has all proven to be true. How dare they act on classified information that proves their "second coming" is the most corrupt and evil person ever to sit in the oval office (and, yes, I've been around long enough to see both Clinton and Nixon, who were saints compared to Trump)?

 
Yeah, all Trump worshipers (and non-supporters like you) consider anything bad said about him to be heresy...I mean that's part of the religion, right? Sometimes they even claim it's hearsay and should be ignored, even if it has all proven to be true. How dare they act on classified information that proves their "second coming" is the most corrupt and evil person ever to sit in the oval office (and, yes, I've been around long enough to see both Clinton and Nixon, who were saints compared to Trump)?
You misspelled "cult"

 
The whistle blower complaint was mostly a bunch of partisan inuendo and heresy. 
Leaving out the heresy typo for the moment - why do you think the complaint was "partisan innuendo"?

The "facts" - meaning the White House summary of the call - confirm much of what is in the complaint.  Trump did raise Biden with Zelensky.  This was improper - full stop.

Giuliani has confirmed he was engaged, on behalf of Trump, in plot to have Ukraine investigate the Bidens (with the dual purpose of helping Trump in 2020, and for the financial gain of his thugs.) . Both of these are improper on their own, and in conjunction with working on behalf of the President.  Full Stop.

Trump has said he will not comply with Congressional subpoenas.  That is a text-book case of obstruction of Congress.

What about this do you find to be "partisan innuendo"?  Or is this simply the last straw to grasp?

 
The whistle blower complaint was mostly a bunch of partisan inuendo and heresy.  The only thing concrete was the existence of the summary of the phone call. 
Why would you write this? How can you post this if you are paying attention at all? 

 
Has Trump made any move that hurts Russia during his presidency? Anything on the level of the things he's done that clearly help them, like with Syria?

I kinda thought the Russian asset thing was BS for awhile, but his track record looks like a bunch of moves that help Russia. And hurt the US and it's allies.
I’ve never thought Trump was a willing Russian asset.  He’s just corrupt and only thinks of himself.  He’ll do or say anything that furthers his own interests - it’s just that simple, IMO.  There’s really no reason to debate policy or look at issues.

Even this latest with pulling the troops out of Syria - there’s 3 (maybe more possibilities) - he’s doing it to distract from impeachment, he’s doing it to get re-elected or he’s doing it because it furthers his business interests in Turkey and Russia.  That’s it, it’s always it - he’s a simpleton who treats everything and everyone as transactional.  
 

ETA - or a combination of those plus some I’m forgetting

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems to me the intelligence community has just figured out a new way to get out classified information which may be damaging to a politician they don't care for instead of leaking it.  The whistle blower complaint was mostly a bunch of partisan inuendo and heresy.  The only thing concrete was the existence of the summary of the phone call. 
Umm...what?

 
Leaving out the heresy typo for the moment - why do you think the complaint was "partisan innuendo"?

The "facts" - meaning the White House summary of the call - confirm much of what is in the complaint.  Trump did raise Biden with Zelensky.  This was improper - full stop.

Giuliani has confirmed he was engaged, on behalf of Trump, in plot to have Ukraine investigate the Bidens (with the dual purpose of helping Trump in 2020, and for the financial gain of his thugs.) . Both of these are improper on their own, and in conjunction with working on behalf of the President.  Full Stop.

Trump has said he will not comply with Congressional subpoenas.  That is a text-book case of obstruction of Congress.

What about this do you find to be "partisan innuendo"?  Or is this simply the last straw to grasp?
Also a Trump appointee found it credible.  

 
Partisan inuendo and heresy.   You know as opposed to real evidence.   Yes, the summary of the phone call is real evidence, but nothing else in the 'whistleblower' report is evidence.   
You should probably read the complaint, then documentation about the complaint and sinn’s post above.

 
It seems to me the intelligence community has just figured out a new way to get out classified information which may be damaging to a politician they don't care for instead of leaking it. 

The whistle blower complaint was mostly a bunch of partisan inuendo and heresy.  The only thing concrete was the existence of the summary of the phone call. 
That’s the purpose behind the statute. It’s been around a long time.

That’s why they use the inspector general process. The Republicans are trying to lean heavily on that process right now with the DOJ IG. 

In this instance the IG at issue was appointed by Trump himself.

 
That’s the purpose behind the statute. It’s been around a long time.

That’s why they use the inspector general process. The Republicans are trying to lean heavily on that process right now with the DOJ IG. 

In this instance the IG at issue was appointed by Trump himself.
I know the purpose of the statute.  But here it seems there might be more political motivation behind it.  The use of terms like the president's 'demands' to insinuate something more than a request.  The report is information and conclusions he heard from third-parties, which is not typical of evidence you would expect in a whistleblower report.   The fact that this person is alleged to have worked closely with Biden is consistent with how his report reads. 

 
I know the purpose of the statute.  But here it seems there might be more political motivation behind it.  The use of terms like the president's 'demands' to insinuate something more than a request.  The report is information and conclusions he heard from third-parties, which is not typical of evidence you would expect in a whistleblower report.   The fact that this person is alleged to have worked closely with Biden is consistent with how his report reads. 
Ok then you are conceding the point of the IG is to independently evaluate such issues, which is what happened. Think of the alternatives to the IG process: leaks in the press or worse yet hacks.

About the innuendo about Biden. Let’s say that’s true. Why wouldn’t independent IC members work with members of administrations of both parties and isn’t that exactly what you want?

 
Partisan inuendo and heresy.   You know as opposed to real evidence.   Yes, the summary of the phone call is real evidence, but nothing else in the 'whistleblower' report is evidence.   
A complaint is not supposed to be evidence. A complaint is merely a device to alert the authorities that a crime has been committed and needs to be investigated. It's the purpose of the investigation to determine if there is actually evidence of that wrongdoing. It's just like a call to the police reporting something isn't evidence. When the police arrive and start investigating, what they find is the evidence.

 
 The fact that this person is alleged to have worked closely with Biden is consistent with how his report reads. 
This has been alleged by a guy who wrote the book called The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President—and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time

 
I know the purpose of the statute.  But here it seems there might be more political motivation behind it.  The use of terms like the president's 'demands' to insinuate something more than a request.  The report is information and conclusions he heard from third-parties, which is not typical of evidence you would expect in a whistleblower report.   The fact that this person is alleged to have worked closely with Biden is consistent with how his report reads. 
So "allegations" about someone whose identity is unknown (and which, therefore, cannot be evaluated) are credible enough to dismiss the claims that have actually been supported by the subsequent investigation?

 
Thanks for reminding me this is a cesspool and the kind of responses one should expect from a cesspool.   
When you choose to avoid all questions and challenges regarding your spurious assertions and instead respond to posts like this one, then you are the one creating the cesspool. Without your posts complaining about the cesspool, I find it’s usually far less of one. 

 
That is probably true, but that is for the voters to decide not the intelligence agencies. 
They have a responsibility to the nation to report malfeasance by government officials. You know this, too. One can only conclude that you don't like when the constitutional apparatus is turned against a president whose policies you support.

 
A complaint is not supposed to be evidence. A complaint is merely a device to alert the authorities that a crime has been committed and needs to be investigated. It's the purpose of the investigation to determine if there is actually evidence of that wrongdoing. It's just like a call to the police reporting something isn't evidence. When the police arrive and start investigating, what they find is the evidence.
That is all good, so treat is as such.  When such a report is deemed 'credible' don't take it to mean anything more than probable cause.   

 
They have a responsibility to the nation to report malfeasance by government officials. You know this, too. One can only conclude that you don't like when the constitutional apparatus is turned against a president whose policies you support.
Of course, that is the 'only' conclusion there is.  🤣

This place....

 
When you choose to avoid all questions and challenges regarding your spurious assertions and instead respond to posts like this one, then you are the one creating the cesspool. Without your posts complaining about the cesspool, I find it’s usually far less of one. 
🤣I get 10 responses in 10 minutes and I only responded to three of them 5 minutes later.  Good lord this place sucks. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top