The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[Ibanez]

Both sides are claiming victory. But I’ve learned a few things.

I learned yesterday that I can theoretically break the law as long as I dont say the magic words.

I learned yesterday that Sondland would sell out his mother.

I learned that having a country investigate a conspiracy theory about my political opponent is acceptable.

I learned that, after listening to C-Span, there are a LOT of call ins from NC and that the callers have no clue how impeachment’s work or how to speak properly and conjugate verbs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, its a conspiracy theory. Its not like Biden is on camera bragging about having the prosecutor general fired that was investigating his son‘s company for corruption..

There's video? I haven't seen it on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or the internets. Can you please post, i'd love to see it?


Oh, and can you respond to the questions that I keep asking? I've asked it plenty up there directly to you. Thanks, buddy.

[Ibanez]

The closest we will get to Bolton testifying is Fiona Hill...and she is not afraid to push back on this bs Ukraine conspiracy theory.


In the end, Dems will impeach, the Senate will acquit, Republicans will claim victory and America will be more polarized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not so sure. Bolton wants to testify and he has hinted that he knows a lot more about Ukraine than just this.

The Dems should have torn up the courier service serving him with a subpoena already


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that the Dems should've subpoenaed him months ago. But unless he comes forward despite what Trump says, I doubt we'll ever get him on record.


And if the White House can force people to ignore subpoenas from Congress, perhaps Congress can force the opposite?

[CID1990]

I’m not so sure. Bolton wants to testify and he has hinted that he knows a lot more about Ukraine than just this.

The Dems should have torn up the courier service serving him with a subpoena already


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that the Dems should've subpoenaed him months ago. But unless he comes forward despite what Trump says, I doubt we'll ever get him on record.


And if the White House can force people to ignore subpoenas from Congress, perhaps Congress can force the opposite?

I’m telling you - Bolton is itching to testify. But he has to be under a court-upheld subpoena. If he just goes “voluntarily” then he opens himself up to liability for disclosure of privileged/classified. Hence the need for the subpoena. The minute a judge upholds it Bolton would drive over his mother getting to the Hill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, its a conspiracy theory. Its not like Biden is on camera bragging about having the prosecutor general fired that was investigating his son‘s company for corruption..

There's video? I haven't seen it on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or the internets. Can you please post, i'd love to see it?


Oh, and can you respond to the questions that I keep asking? I've asked it plenty up there directly to you. Thanks, buddy.

phpBB [video]

[Skjellyfetti]

I posted it earlier... if you missed it, it's understandable. Been a busy thread today.

But, the judge will rule by Monday on McGahn's case.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/1 ... ena-071653

Don't see why there's a rush and a need to subpoena him before then.

And, pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if Bolton's holding out for McGahn's outcome helped move up the ruling? If so... a McGahn - Bolton doubleheader would be worth the couple week's wait.

I don’t know why you think Bolton’s testimony is tied to the McGahn decision.

Bolton will not testify outside of a subpoena, and that subpoena will also be challenged. The Dems should know this but multitasking doesn’t seem to be in their wheelhouse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought Bolton's testimony was tied to the court ruling based on his lawyer's court filing.

John Bolton's lawyer insists on court ruling before impeachment testimony
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/ ... 72f2e4dc2/

[∞∞∞]

phpBB [video]

It that the Republican twist now? Y'all realize it was an international effort, long before Biden's involvement, to get a known corrupt prosecutor out of there. Biden was brought...

...in an OFFICIAL capacity that BENEFITS the UNITED STATES and our ALLIES.

Your boy is doing everything in an UNOFFICIAL way to benefit HIMSELF.

[Ibanez]

There's video? I haven't seen it on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or the internets. Can you please post, i'd love to see it?


Oh, and can you respond to the questions that I keep asking? I've asked it plenty up there directly to you. Thanks, buddy.

phpBB [video]

Ok. What’s that got to do with Trump asking a foreign government to open an investigation that has no bearing on American foreign policy or is in its national interests?

Follow up question, since that’s the favor Trump requested in order to provide money and military aid, how does an investigation into Biden a national security issue? Furthermore, if Biden's alleged actions were so nefarious why did it take until 2019 for it to be discovered?

How does the announcement of an investigation into Burisma or Biden benefit America? I fail to see the connection.

Another follow up - if that’s from 2006 (which I thought this occurred DURING the Obama administration) why haven’t the Republicans cared to investigate or compel the Biden's to testify? For that matter, why aren’t the Biden's being investigated now since the GOP holds the Senate and Lindsey Graham chairs the committee that would call for that testimony?

How does it benefit the US to get a corrupt person fired in a country where we are fighting a proxy war against the Russians? And who in 2019 benefits from this sudden desire to get to the truth? It deserves an answer. If Biden abused his power, he should be held accountable.

I have been listening to more Fox News and Rush than I care to admit and I have yet to hear a serious, legitimate reason why it's in America's best interest to figure out if Biden abused his office in getting someone fired 5 years ago.

[CID1990]

I don’t know why you think Bolton’s testimony is tied to the McGahn decision.

Bolton will not testify outside of a subpoena, and that subpoena will also be challenged. The Dems should know this but multitasking doesn’t seem to be in their wheelhouse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought Bolton's testimony was tied to the court ruling based on his lawyer's court filing.

John Bolton's lawyer insists on court ruling before impeachment testimony
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/ ... 72f2e4dc2/

He won’t be protected if he does. Watch a subpoena happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

phpBB [video]

It that the Republican twist now? Y'all realize it was an international effort, long before Biden's involvement, to get a known corrupt prosecutor out of there. Biden was brought...

...in an OFFICIAL capacity that BENEFITS the UNITED STATES and our ALLIES.

Your boy is doing everything in an UNOFFICIAL way to benefit HIMSELF.

This is why you catch so much flak - you get very emotional and subjective.

[Skjellyfetti]

As I've posted before - Republicans, Democrats, the EU, IMF all wanted Shokin out.

I guess it's still subjective whether it benefited national security to us and our allies. But, to us and our allies it did.

[Ibanez]

As I've posted before - Republicans, Democrats, the EU, IMF all wanted Shokin out.

I guess it's still subjective whether it benefited national security to us and our allies. But, to us and our allies it did.

Yeah but the optics of Hunter working with Burisma has muddied the waters. That was a bad move on his part.
Someone will have to fact check me but I heard somewhere that Ukraine opened an investigation last year which hasn’t yielded anything.

Maybe I read it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

This is why you catch so much flak - you get very emotional and subjective.

Good. The more flak I get, the more I consider it a success.

The rights you enjoy aren't built on apathy. Emotions build nations, indifference brings them down.

Back to Trump's corruption and sleaziness though; that's more important than my beliefs.

[Ibanez]

This is why you catch so much flak - you get very emotional and subjective.

Good. The more flak I get, the more I consider it a success.

The rights you enjoy aren't built on apathy. Emotions build nations, indifference brings them down.

Back to Trump's corruption and sleaziness though; that's more important than my beliefs.

You don't get it.

[Ibanez]

Well what Sondland said under oath contradicts what he wrote.

Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don't think you're saying that." Rep. Turner asked.

"I said repeatedly [...] I was presuming," Sondland noted.

After some more grilling, Congressman Turner asked again, "Is it correct, nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations? Because if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?"

"Yes," Sondland replied.

"So, you've really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?" Turner asked.

"Other than my own presumption," Sondland said.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/amb-sondla ... esumption/
So “nobody else on this planet” told Sondland quid pro quo would include Guiliani.

Something that's left out of this that I just remembered..the phone call where Trump says, "no nothing, etc..." occurred after the whistle-blower complaint and the investigations begun.


And after the word "quid pro quo" was thrown into the mix. Funny how that worked out. Context and timing is everything.


I know.. I know.. 45-D Chess

[Skjellyfetti]

As I've posted before - Republicans, Democrats, the EU, IMF all wanted Shokin out.

I guess it's still subjective whether it benefited national security to us and our allies. But, to us and our allies it did.

Yeah but the optics of Hunter working with Burisma has muddied the waters. That was a bad move on his part.
Someone will have to fact check me but I heard somewhere that Ukraine opened an investigation last year which hasn’t yielded anything.

Maybe I read it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, no doubt Hunter working there was a dipshit move. Definitely don't dispute that.

[93henfan]

And here's the emo version for our donks:

[CAA Flagship]

And here's the emo version for our donks:

[SDHornet]

You're missing the obvious:

Where there is smoke there is fire.

FIFY

Isn't that what the leftists said about the Russia Trump collusion hoax? Oh, yes, yes it is.

[AZGrizFan]

This is why you catch so much flak - you get very emotional and subjective.

Good. The more flak I get, the more I consider it a success.

The rights you enjoy aren't built on apathy. Emotions build nations, indifference brings them down.

Good god. Are you sure you're not female?

[GannonFan]

Now for the reason I came to this thread: After I watched today I wondered about what the coverage would be like in terms of influencing perception. So I decided to watch ABC World News Tonight. The reason I did that is that it's the highest rated network news nightly news show. The viewerships of network news nightly news shows dwarf any viewerships for comparable time periods on the cable news networks. ABC World News Tonight averages about 8 1/2 million viewers per 30 minute session. The highest rated cable news network show is Sean Hannity. That's sad, I know. But he averages around 3 1/2 million.

The major network news nightly news shows average about 21 million combined.

So I decided to watch ABC World News tonight today to see the impression created with respect to the Sondland testimony. And it was not good for Trump and the Republicans. They dutifully reported what the Republican talking points were. But they also dutifully destroyed them with context such as the fact that, when Trump told Sondland on the phone that there was no quid pro quo, he was already aware of the whistleblower report and the fact that the jig was up.

I have little doubt that the other two major broadcast networks provided similar coverage.

Why your love for ABC News all of a sudden? ABC News had that breaking story in the month leading up to the 2016 election of how Hillary's Sec of State office made significant political contributions to the Clinton Foundation a blantant requirement for getting government contracts for Haiti reconstruction (as clear and simple of a corrupt pay to play scheme you can get) and you didn't budge an inch in your support of all things Hillary.

Oh, and ABC News has been a shell of itself since Peter Jennings died. How much of that rating is people tuning in to get the channel over to watch Jeopardy that follows right after in much of the East Coast?

[kalm]

Good. The more flak I get, the more I consider it a success.

The rights you enjoy aren't built on apathy. Emotions build nations, indifference brings them down.

Good god. Are you sure you're not female?

Do you think he’s wrong?

[AZGrizFan]

Good god. Are you sure you're not female?

Do you think he’s wrong?

He sounds like a chick.

[GannonFan]

Good god. Are you sure you're not female?

Do you think he’s wrong?

I think he's so oversimplifying it that he can be neither right or wrong. He's other. Or pee in the butt, depending on the choices.

[89Hen]

And here's the emo version for our donks:

[89Hen]

Good god. Are you sure you're not female?

Do you think he’s wrong?

Yes. Emotions also tear down nations.