The whistleblower

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454

So I see motive.

Motive for what? Are you insinuating that they all got together and conspired to concoct a fake set of facts to get Trump impeached?

To protect the Burisma gravy train? You betcha.

Oh, and as punishment for taking away "her turn" and rectifying the situation for Lord Soros et al, again, you betcha.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

HUGE?

Ukraine's Burisma gas company (Hunter Biden was a $50k @ month board member) asked the Obama/Biden Administration for help with ending an investigation into its dealings.

Shortly thereafter, Joe Biden blackmailed the Ukraine President into having the investigating prosecutor fired.

Exclusive from John Solomon: johnsolomonreports.com...

a reply to: dfnj2015

No his testimony is his opinion. His characterization of the phone call was based on his idea of what foreign policy should be.

It wasn't and will never be up to him. His testimony was worthless.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: shooterbrody

Asking someone to look into something is not a crime no matter how you wish it to be.

Correct. Using funds allocated by Congress to force a foreign nation to look into something involving a political opponent is, though.

Specifically a violation of 18 USC 601. As has been shown here numerous times.

Link

That isn’t an opinion. It’s a textbook violation of the law.

No it isn't. This situation falls under the treaty purview because Trump never told the Ukraine he would withhold funds if they didn't. Period. End of story. Did.Not.Happen.

Now if Trump asked Zelenskiy to make up things that would affect whoever the Democrat's pick for 2020 would be, then yes. Kind of like what the Dems did to Trump in 2016, admitted by the Ukraine's former leadership as FACT and reported in 2017.

And since you brought that up, Biden did that very thing, admitted and bragged about it on tape. Are you suggesting he should be arrested, convicted and jailed? Hm? I didn't think so.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Wardaddy454

HUGE?

Ukraine's Burisma gas company (Hunter Biden was a $50k @ month board member) asked the Obama/Biden Administration for help with ending an investigation into its dealings.

Shortly thereafter, Joe Biden blackmailed the Ukraine President into having the investigating prosecutor fired.

Exclusive from John Solomon: johnsolomonreports.com...

You mean THE John Solomon who has never been wrong on any of his investigations? Man, that's going to leave a mark.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I cannot call it anything nor can anyone else unless they were of the select few in the Congressional Cone of Silence.

There was Taylor's "leaked" opening statement but that is not testimony per se.

It would be great to provide an opinion on actual testimony but until such time, it is truly nothing more than some guy heard what some other guy said. It would be great to listen to cross examination too. As of today, all we have is spin.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
But I think there is pretty evidence. It seems to me Republicans are just refusing to accept the evidence and then whining about a political witch hunt.

Pretty much what I was saying in a post back here.
I've had very vocal and persistent, and very prolific posters back at me perpetuating the lie that the phone transcript was made public in full, which it wasn't and never has been, thereby perpetuating the lie that the transcript did not show Trump doing anything wrong in the conversation.
I find that disturbing, that ATS is being targeted by controlled propaganda.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454

So I see motive.

Motive for what? Are you insinuating that they all got together and conspired to concoct a fake set of facts to get Trump impeached?

To protect the Burisma gravy train? You betcha.

Oh, and as punishment for taking away "her turn" and rectifying the situation for Lord Soros et al, again, you betcha.

Sorry Wardaddy, I can't go there with you on this.

Throwing this into the fray...

I may have missed the post or poster claiming POTUS should not face justice if he indeed broke the law. Maybe there is a club of posters of which I am ignorant. Of course I do not read every thread, every minute of every day. Apparently some here do and can make that claim without fear of sounding hyperbolic.

When Trump asks a foreign head of state about possible corruption, is that illegal? Please explain how you can read the man's mind and can clearly prove he was just looking out for his interests and not the interests of the country he was elected President?

For those concerned about possibly withholding money, please explain how exactly do you think diplomacy works? Do you believe countries do favors for other countries out of the goodness of their collective hearts? Please explain how diplomacy, at it's core, is not a type of quid pro quo.

I am not an R or a D but this stinks of a political ploy draped in faux pearl clutching concern for the welfare of the Republic. If you are a Trump hater or dyed in the wool Democrat, there is a guaranteed impeachment opportunity coming up a year from now. Instead of all this fake BS, where are your candidates?!?! Put some quality choices out there. America is hungry for it. Instead you puke out the same old duds, try to cover up your shenanigans, and throw manure over Trump in hopes that something sticks.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Wardaddy454

HUGE?

Ukraine's Burisma gas company (Hunter Biden was a $50k @ month board member) asked the Obama/Biden Administration for help with ending an investigation into its dealings.

Shortly thereafter, Joe Biden blackmailed the Ukraine President into having the investigating prosecutor fired.

Exclusive from John Solomon: johnsolomonreports.com...

Verrrrry interesting.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454

So I see motive.

Motive for what? Are you insinuating that they all got together and conspired to concoct a fake set of facts to get Trump impeached?

To protect the Burisma gravy train? You betcha.

Oh, and as punishment for taking away "her turn" and rectifying the situation for Lord Soros et al, again, you betcha.

Sorry Wardaddy, I can't go there with you on this.

Didn't ask you to.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
there does seem to be pretty good evidence Trump broke the law. Check out the quotes below

I don't think that would be in accord with our values

I think it's crazy

I did not think it was proper

I am a patriot

I looked at the quotes, what law did those people claim Trump broke, I did no see any laws mentioned. We have the transcript. If any law was broken we don't need charades and witnesses. The fact they have not acted after they got the transcript tells me no law was broken.

If I am accused of robbing a store and I give the police a video showing every second of what I did in the store they don't need to keep bringing in witnesses. They see what I did, you don't need anyone else to tell what happened at that point.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

What do you call the testimony of Ambassador Taylor, Fiona Hill, Lt Col Vindman?

Hearsay.

Politically motivated hearsay. That would land Trump haters nailed for malicious prosecution if it were a REAL courts of law.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I've heard several people say if the identity of the whistleblower were known he would show up dead. A lot people sure end of dead around DC. If I were the whistleblower I would not want my identity known until giving testimony under oath before Congress.

Eric Ciaramella doesn't wish to have his identity out there, you say?

a reply to: neo96

Hearsay.

Except Trump admitted on the White House lawn, and Mulvaney admitted in a press conference, that they did the very thing everyone else is testifying they did.

LOL

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And ?

That's what they been calling American diplomacy for over 200 years.

a reply to: neo96

Actually, its' exactly the kind of abuse of power and foreign influence that the founding fathers warned against, and the reason that they included impeachment for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors in the Constitution.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Actually, no, it isn't.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neo96

Actually, its' exactly the kind of abuse of power and foreign influence that the founding fathers warned against, and the reason that they included impeachment for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors in the Constitution.

Uhhh, in the case of bribery, it was impeachable if the CiC was taking bribes from the enemy.

Fail.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yeah GD Trump.

He should just have hot mic moments about being more flexible to Russian interests like the last guy.

How dare he.