The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[∞∞∞]

Have you seen how conservatives - including politicians and right-wing outlets - have attacked the whistle blower?

God help them and their family if their identity is ever exposed.

I'm more surprised a second one officially came forward.

And Trump pretty much sent a message as well.

Very true.

Besides being a traitor, Trump's legacy will include stochastic terrorism.

It's a nice hill the conservative movement is willing to die on.

[CAA Flagship]

I still don't understand why there aren't more whistleblowers coming forward. The only thing I can come up with is that this sort of stuff happens all the time. And that the only reason THIS is being whistleblowed (redneckery term) is because of the hatred for Trump.

What? The people that were on the call were direct witnesses. It doesn't surprise me that Pompeo didn't say anything. Let's face it, would Hillary blow the whistle on Obama? But somebody that was on the call shared information that directly or indirectly reached the whistleblower. Not sure why that person didn't blow the whistle. If that person thought that they didn't want to get involved and wanted someone else to do it, then that's a huge risk because an investigation would surely retrace the path.

I doubt the information that was shared wasn't believed to be some sort of inappropriate action by the witness since there was so many details that the WB provided. I just don't understand why the witness doesn't have the obligation to say something.

[Skjellyfetti]

A second whistleblower has come forward with information about President Donald Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine, according to attorneys representing that whistleblower and the intelligence official whose earlier complaint set off a series of events that led to an impeachment inquiry.

The second whistleblower "has first-hand knowledge" of the events, according to the first whistleblower's attorney, Mark Zaid. The original whistleblower did not listen directly to Trump's call, but talked to people who had.

The first complaint, filed in August with the intelligence community's inspector general, centered on a July 25 phone call during which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to look into why Ukraine's top prosecutor had apparently ended an investigation into a Ukrainian gas company that once employed former Vice President Joe Biden's son as a board member. House Democrats launched a formal impeachment inquiry last month as details of the conversation were made public.

Legal sources told NBC News that second whistleblower is not filing a separate formal complaint, but that they are still entitled to legal protections for cooperating with the inspector general.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... l-n1062961

[kalm]

What? The people that were on the call were direct witnesses. It doesn't surprise me that Pompeo didn't say anything. Let's face it, would Hillary blow the whistle on Obama? But somebody that was on the call shared information that directly or indirectly reached the whistleblower. Not sure why that person didn't blow the whistle. If that person thought that they didn't want to get involved and wanted someone else to do it, then that's a huge risk because an investigation would surely retrace the path.

I doubt the information that was shared wasn't believed to be some sort of inappropriate action by the witness since there was so many details that the WB provided. I just don't understand why the witness doesn't have the obligation to say something.

Let’s start with...it’s a life changing event on several levels and potentially even a life threatening event and the easiest path is to leave it up to someone else, let the chips fall and be compliant when asked.

[CAA Flagship]

What? The people that were on the call were direct witnesses. It doesn't surprise me that Pompeo didn't say anything. Let's face it, would Hillary blow the whistle on Obama? But somebody that was on the call shared information that directly or indirectly reached the whistleblower. Not sure why that person didn't blow the whistle. If that person thought that they didn't want to get involved and wanted someone else to do it, then that's a huge risk because an investigation would surely retrace the path.

I doubt the information that was shared wasn't believed to be some sort of inappropriate action by the witness since there was so many details that the WB provided. I just don't understand why the witness doesn't have the obligation to say something.

Let’s start with...it’s a life changing event on several levels and potentially even a life threatening event and the easiest path is to leave it up to someone else, let the chips fall and be compliant when asked.

So that leaves only those that are politically or financially motivated, or possibly something else, to dive headfirst into the septic tank.

[houndawg]

...saw today that a judge is considering releasing all the names in the Epstein files.

I think if there were any real bombshells in there they would have already been leaked.

Remember - behind all the underage tail chasing there’s actual underage tail out there that would have said something if they got porked by a VVIP. Like that British royal inbred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reminds me of back in the day when Lyndon LaRouche accused the Queen of England of smuggling heroin.

[kalm]

Let’s start with...it’s a life changing event on several levels and potentially even a life threatening event and the easiest path is to leave it up to someone else, let the chips fall and be compliant when asked.

So that leaves only those that are politically or financially motivated, or possibly something else, to dive headfirst into the septic tank.

Or possibly report on a crime...through the proper channels.

[CID1990]

Second whistle blower officially comes forward.

If the NYT's story earlier this week was correct, this person is higher up and has direct knowledge/access to the issues at hand.

The original WB said there were 6 people with direct knowledge of the calls that would corroborate his story which is why the whining about hearsay from all the junior prosecutors out there so funny.

"its not admissible in court"..."they just changed the rules."

Yeah well we're not in court. Its an investigation.

I was waiting to see if this would happen -

Common sense dictates that if the allegations were inaccurate, then the people who were alleged to have first hand knowledge would not come forward (because they wouldn’t exist)

But if the allegations were true, then SOMEBODY with first hand knowledge is going to have to come forward.... because they will need to get in front of having guilty knowledge that will come out when the original whistleblower names them

That’s why I said in an earlier post that we need to hear from the people referenced in the original complaint.

Put me back in the leaning probable column


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

I still don't understand why there aren't more whistleblowers coming forward. The only thing I can come up with is that this sort of stuff happens all the time. And that the only reason THIS is being whistleblowed (redneckery term) is because of the hatred for Trump.

Have you seen how conservatives - including politicians and right-wing outlets - have attacked the whistle blower?

God help them if their identity is ever exposed.

I'm more surprised a second one officially came forward. These people are great Americans.

Oh please with the hyperbole

They’ll be fine

I swear distinguishing between Trumpbots and Resistancebots is an exercise in miniscule differences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

Oh please with the hyperbole

They’ll be fine

I swear distinguishing between Trumpbots and Resistancebots is an exercise in miniscule differences

"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now..."

Not the first time he's made violent implications either:

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks...although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Trump is a terrorist.

[CID1990]

Oh please with the hyperbole

They’ll be fine

I swear distinguishing between Trumpbots and Resistancebots is an exercise in miniscule differences

"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now..."

Not the first time he's made violent implications either:

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks...although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Trump is a terrorist.

Ok get back to me when the blowhard makes good, Nancy




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

As Rudy Giuliani was pushing Ukrainian officials last spring to investigate one of Donald Trump’s main political rivals, a group of individuals with ties to the president and his personal lawyer were also active in the former Soviet republic.

Their aims were profit, not politics. This circle of businessmen and Republican donors touted connections to Giuliani and Trump while trying to install new management at the top of Ukraine’s massive state gas company. Their plan was to then steer lucrative contracts to companies controlled by Trump allies, according to two people with knowledge of their plans.

Their plan hit a snag after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko lost his reelection bid to Volodymyr Zelenskiy, whose conversation with Trump about former Vice President Joe Biden is now at the center of the House impeachment inquiry of Trump.

But the effort to install a friendlier management team at the helm of the gas company, Naftogaz, would soon be taken up with Ukraine’s new president by U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, whose slate of candidates included a fellow Texan who is one of Perry’s past political donors.

Ukraine, a resource-rich nation that sits on the geographic and symbolic border between Russia and the West, has long been plagued by corruption and government dysfunction, making it a magnet for foreign profiteers.

At the center of the Naftogaz plan, according to three individuals familiar with the details, were three such businessmen: two Soviet-born Florida real estate entrepreneurs, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, and an oil magnate from Boca Raton, Florida, named Harry Sargeant III.

Parnas and Fruman have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations to Republicans, including $325,000 to a Trump-allied political action committee in 2018. This helped the relatively unknown entrepreneurs gain access to top levels of the Republican Party — including meetings with Trump at the White House and Mar-a-Lago.

The two have also faced lawsuits from disgruntled investors over unpaid debts. During the same period they were pursuing the Naftogaz deal, the two were coordinating with Giuliani to set up meetings with Ukrainian government officials and push for an investigation of the Bidens.

Sargeant, his wife and corporate entities tied to the family have donated at least $1.2 million to Republican campaigns and PACs over the last 20 years, including $100,000 in June to the Trump Victory Fund, according to federal and state campaign finance records. He has also served as finance chair of the Florida state GOP, and gave nearly $14,000 to Giuliani’s failed 2008 presidential campaign.

In early March, Fruman, Parnas and Sargeant were touting a plan to replace Naftogaz CEO Andriy Kobolyev with another senior executive at the company, Andrew Favorov, according to two individuals who spoke to the AP as well as a memorandum about the meeting that was later submitted to the U.S. Embassy in Kiev.

https://apnews.com/d7440cffba4940f5b85c ... ce=Twitter



LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH!

[Skjellyfetti]

45 Energy Group

Complete with photograph of the White House in case the reference wasn't blatant enough.

https://45energygroup.com/45-group-global-services/

[SeattleGriz]

Oh please with the hyperbole

They’ll be fine

I swear distinguishing between Trumpbots and Resistancebots is an exercise in miniscule differences

"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now..."

Not the first time he's made violent implications either:

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks...although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Trump is a terrorist.

Apparently this is your first whistleblower. Previous administrations haven't been the most wonderful either.

[SeattleGriz]

Ha! Possible off site, altered voice testimony for the whistleblower. Oh yeah, Republicans don't get to meet him/her either.

I'd be embarrassed if the Conks rolled this bush league weakness out.

[JohnStOnge]

Ha! Possible off site, altered voice testimony for the whistleblower. Oh yeah, Republicans don't get to meet him/her either.

I'd be embarrassed if the Conks rolled this bush league weakness out.

The reason for it is that the Republicans are completely corrupt right now. They cannot be trusted to protect identities. It's obvious.

[SeattleGriz]

Ha! Possible off site, altered voice testimony for the whistleblower. Oh yeah, Republicans don't get to meet him/her either.

I'd be embarrassed if the Conks rolled this bush league weakness out.

The reason for it is that the Republicans are completely corrupt right now. They cannot be trusted to protect identities. It's obvious.

You bought into the Russia collusion thing too, right. Just saying.

[SDHornet]

Hhmmm...but remember folks, all this whistle-blower stuff was all done according to protocol.

[SDHornet]

House Democrats are looking to prevent the whistleblower from being identified by holding the person's testimony at a remote location and potentially changing their appearance and voice.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4647 ... ale-report



And now it's sounding like the whistleblower had a working relationship with a Donk presidential candidate.

This is getting more entertaining than jellybelly's other thread.

[BDKJMU]

Ha! Possible off site, altered voice testimony for the whistleblower. Oh yeah, Republicans don't get to meet him/her either.

I'd be embarrassed if the Conks rolled this bush league weakness out.

The reason for it is that the Republicans are completely corrupt right now. They cannot be trusted to protect identities. It's obvious.

6th Amendment the accused has the right to face & cross examine his accuser. You know, part of that pesky thing called due process.

[∞∞∞]

The reason for it is that the Republicans are completely corrupt right now. They cannot be trusted to protect identities. It's obvious.

6th Amendment the accused has the right to face & cross examine his accuser. You know, part of that pesky thing called due process.

The 6th doesn't apply 'cause it's not a criminal prosecution; this is a separate Impeachment process as outlined by Article 1. The President doesn't have to do anything criminal to be impeached (or anything at all), and the House has sole power to conduct it. This is why it's separate from the 6th.

And even if the 6th applied, the accused gets a chance to face the witnesses during trial. If equivalent to any judicial process (which it's not), the Senate process would be the trial.

Let's also makes this clear, the whistle blower is not the accuser.

[SeattleGriz]

Reading where some believe the 2nd whistleblower, is actually the person who informed the 1st whistleblower. Be interesting to see.

[Vidav]

Second whistle blower officially comes forward.

If the NYT's story earlier this week was correct, this person is higher up and has direct knowledge/access to the issues at hand.

The original WB said there were 6 people with direct knowledge of the calls that would corroborate his story which is why the whining about hearsay from all the junior prosecutors out there so funny.

"its not admissible in court"..."they just changed the rules."

Yeah well we're not in court. Its an investigation.

Hearsay is often admissible in court anywhosit.

phpBB [video]

[kalm]

House Democrats are looking to prevent the whistleblower from being identified by holding the person's testimony at a remote location and potentially changing their appearance and voice.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4647 ... ale-report



And now it's sounding like the whistleblower had a working relationship with a Donk presidential candidate.

Where is it saying that?

[Ivytalk]

6th Amendment the accused has the right to face & cross examine his accuser. You know, part of that pesky thing called due process.

The 6th doesn't apply 'cause it's not a criminal prosecution; this is a separate Impeachment process as outlined by Article 1. The President doesn't have to do anything criminal to be impeached (or anything at all), and the House has sole power to conduct it. This is why it's separate from the 6th.

And even if the 6th applied, the accused gets a chance to face the witnesses during trial. If equivalent to any judicial process (which it's not), the Senate process would be the trial.

Let's also makes this clear, the whistle blower is not the accuser.

So Trip took a home study course during rare breaks from gaming and became a law professor.