Whistleblower Indirectly Identified by Schiff and Vindman

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Dims are already getting the first taste of defeat with this circus. Soon comes THE HAMMER.

Soycus Maximus 😎

originally posted by: Xtrozero
SHOW ME YOUR WAR FACE!!!

The guy reminds me of a turtle.

Is there a possibility that a FISA warrant is
in place and those who are lying are going
to get caught this time?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Once again for the terminally misspoken, Burisma is not and was not owned by Hunter Biden. He was an employee of the company, and a ridiculously well-paid one, but there is zero evidence that he did anything wrong, the Ukrainians have repeatedly stated that there was no evidence he did anything wrong, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Joe Biden did anything in any regard except to follow the directions of his President.

So Obama is the one guilty of bribery? If Biden was following the direction of the POTUS, then it was Obama who ordered the firing of the prosecutor in exchange for releasing 1 billion in aid. Thanks for clarifying.

a reply to: panoz77

You’re welcome.

I look forward to your campaign to impeach President Obama.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: panoz77

You’re welcome.

I look forward to your campaign to impeach President Obama.

We just appreciate you admitting that Obama committed bribery in office.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: panoz77

You’re welcome.

I look forward to your campaign to impeach President Obama.

We just appreciate you admitting that Obama committed bribery in office.

I will when you admit that Trump has done the same thing if Obama did, as that is the actual question before us.

You first.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump never admotted to a quid pro quo.

These last two witnesses both testified there was no quid pro quo or bribery.

Biden admitted on camera there was a quid pro quo under the Obama admin.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump never admotted to a quid pro quo.

These last two witnesses both testified there was no quid pro quo or bribery.

Biden admitted on camera there was a quid pro quo under the Obama admin.

The White House Chief of Staff certainly admitted that there was a quid pro quo involved. His words.

You’re summarizing the witness testimony.

Biden stated that President Obama decided to withhold loan guarantees until Ukraine addressed serious national issues which were lobbied against by both the EU and the US.

You have argued that Trump has done nothing wrong in his deal with Ukraine; how can you argue that President Obama did?

a reply to: Gryphon66

First please link me white house chief of staff saying their was a quid pro quo. these witnesses were very clear there wasnt one.

Second, I dont care what EU people said, thats irrelevant. If boris johnson and nigel farage come out and say trump was right to want to investigate biden., that shouldnt weigh in at all to our determination if it was proper for him to do so.

Third, I have argued from teh get go, a quid pro quo on its own is not corrupt. Clearly thats what the dems think, as they are fine with Bidens.

I argued that if an executive branch authority uses a quid pro quo with congressional approved aid with large sums of cas, to threaten a foreign country to fire a country tasked with looking into a company there familiy member is emloyed by, there should be an investigation. Period, regardless of what the media says, or the eu says, etc.

We know that if this was trump, forcing the firing of a prosecutor looking into don jr.s company, all of the media and dems would go nuts and demand an investigation.

Now this doesnt prove Biden is guilty,. which again I have said repeatedly It proves there is sufficient evidence to investigate, therefore trump did nothing wrong by wanting an investigation.

The subject of this thread is a very salient point coming up across the internet and news.

What Schiff did today was the biggest display of foot in mouth that he's been lying about knowing who the whistleblower is. Not that we didn't know this.

This testimony has been all about people's feelings, their perspectives, their opinions on the President's changes to foreign policy, of which he is responsible for. Factually, the witnesses have said they don't agree with what he might have done, but that they never saw a violation of our laws or the Executive branch.

At the end of the day, Trump asked for investigations into a corrupt gas company that had already embezzled money from US taxpayers, and interference in the 2016 election that was blamed on Trump and Russia in the first place. It nullifies the impeachment bait and switch. No quid pro quo. No extortion according to any witness. No bribery. It is a President conducting foreign affairs into matters that had potential damage to our tax money and election system, even when it is against the better judgment of his advisors. It is not criminal on the level that the Founding Fathers had intended for impeachment.

For those that believe this impeachment process isn't political, just read what happened to Johnson... it was purely politically motivated and failed miserably as a result.

This will go down in history as the worst display of abuse of the impeachment clause and it will be pinned on the Democrats... and in the ashes of your party's complete nuclear meltdown, will rise the sprouts of "green deals" and socialists like AOC and Bernie. God help us in 2024.

~Namaste

a reply to: Grambler



3:21 (sorry)

I will when you admit that Trump has done the same thing if Obama did, as that is the actual question before us.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This is not a logically consistent statement.

a reply to: projectvxn

Did Obama commit bribery by withholding loan guarantees?

Did Trump commit bribery by withholding the sale of Javelins?

If the first is no then the second has to be no.

If the first is yes, then the second has to be yes.

Assuming that the President in both cases withheld something of value until Ukraine complied with our intentions.

Calling it bribery is making the whole thing even more stupid.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The White House Chief of Staff certainly admitted that there was a quid pro quo involved. His words.

When he said “we do it all the time”? You and I had this discussion already didn’t we? Can you post a link please that clearly defined his terminology of “we” as in “Trump” specifically “does it all the time” or did he mean “we”as a country “do it all the time” or did he mean “we” as in others officials that handle foreign policy issues “do it all the time”?

Just curios because I’ve yet to see that clearly defined to mean “Trump does it all the time” nor is it an admission that the particular statement in question is an admission of Trumps guilt to the Ukraine call. It was a very ambiguous statement none the less.

a reply to: mtnshredder

Reporter: “Isn’t that a quid pro quo?”

Mulvaney: “We do it all the time.”

Yeah I think we discussed it the other day.

No, you’ll have to find someone else to play semantics with.

a reply to: Gryphon66

He does say money would be withheld unless they outed corruption, which would be a sort of quid pro quo, though not the one people are alleging (need to investigate Biden)

But I honestly thank you, I hadnt seen that.

Trump, Volker, Morrison have all denied that.

The ukrainians denied ever being bribed or forced in any way.

Nonetheless, for all of the peoopkle shocked at this, we have known Biden admitted this himself, blatantly, and they had no problem with it.

a reply to: Grambler

For the record, I think Mulvaney is right. Quid pro quo is foreign policy.

That’s assigned to the President in Article II.

So far, this has been a farce, albeit a Constitutional one.

I’ve decided that the Framers meant it to be this way. Allowing the People’s House to Impeach officers while making it virtually impossible to remove them unless there were real egregious issues involved. Intentionally or not, they were geniuses.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We actually agree on more that it seems.

I didnt have a problem with Obama, or the dem senators, etc asking foreign countries to cooperate into investigations about Trump.

I dont have a problem with trump doing it either.

I do think there is reason to investigates Bidens QPQ. but I dont claim to know Biden is guilty, despite my

I disagree with you this is how the framers intended, I think they would have liked to see more restraint using impeachment (as they didnt use it themselves despite massive disagreements) but agree with you the hi threshold for removal and it being in the senate was designed to have cooler heads prevail.



But this is a mess, and im tired of it. All i want is equal application of the law, and congress people, whatever their party, to give a hoot about regular people

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mtnshredder

Reporter: “Isn’t that a quid pro quo?”

Mulvaney: “We do it all the time.”

Yeah I think we discussed it the other day.

No, you’ll have to find someone else to play semantics with.

Awe shucks and I wanted to play with you. I know exactly what he said I’ve seen the vid, nowhere in that vid does he specify that Trump does this all the time, nowhere. Trumps is not the only person that deals with foreign policies, he could’ve been talking about any number of officials or the country in general, correct? He was never specific to the ph call in question as being QPQ as you stated

I know this is the narrative that CNN put out there and framed it as Trump does this all the time but thats hardly the case, sounds good and incriminating though.