White House also involved in advising DNI not to share whistleblower complaint

a reply to: UKTruth

Why is this a story now? Because of someone who didn't actually hear anything saying they heard this discussed 2nd hand???

Is this what we're going with for the whistleblower now?
Lets see, in the deny, distract, divert, attack, modus operandi which one is this?
A second hand account? Wow where is the desperation choice?
I'd love to know what the origin (oranges) of this gem is.

You realize that if trump really wanted to investigate this he has an entire branch of the government at his disposal and if he really wished for the transcripts to be released that is also just a phone call away for him?
This is just oh shlt I've been caught defense behavior.

First he denied the phone calls, then he diverts the attention to Joe Biden and distracts with a bunch of double talk, now he is attacking the whistleblowers validity.

a reply to: Extorris

Lets not forget that the funds were not released until about eleven days ago. The second week of September when it was apparent that the whistleblower story was about to break wide open.
A weak attempt at being proactive lol.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Why is this a story now? Because of someone who didn't actually hear anything saying they heard this discussed 2nd hand???

Is this what we're going with for the whistleblower now?
Lets see, in the deny, distract, divert, attack, modus operandi which one is this?
A second hand account? Wow where is the desperation choice?
I'd love to know what the origin (oranges) of this gem is.

You realize that if trump really wanted to investigate this he has an entire branch of the government at his disposal and if he really wished for the transcripts to be released that is also just a phone call away for him?
This is just oh shlt I've been caught defense behavior.

First he denied the phone calls, then he diverts the attention to Joe Biden and distracts with a bunch of double talk, now he is attacking the whistleblowers validity.

You're only news source, CNN, have already reported that the 'whistleblower' actually never heard anything first hand.

The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower's concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration's determination that the complaint didn't fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.

Quite the admission.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

Quite the opposite actually.

trump comes off as looking corrupt once again and listening to him try to explain the story he has not quite grasped yet he sounds like a raving idiot tripping over his words trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about.

go ahead and laugh.

Hmmmmm.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No worries Ma'am

Your record is still intact

battin 1000.

a reply to: Extorris

A President withholding military aide appropriated by congress, threatening the safety and security of another nation, to extort a foreign country for Kompramat to help with his Presidential election is a clear Abuse of Power by a sitting President

This can't be repeated too many times.
Let them laugh and pretend this is just normal business and try and make Joe Biden the issue when he is not.
I think this is a particularly heavy straw to lay upon the camel's back.

a reply to: ErEhWoN

It was simply a warning for anti-Trump government officials not to promote false whistle blower garbage or face the consequences.

It's getting beyond old at this point.

Nothing the left has done or can do has worked, so they create a new false pile O.S. weekly.

This is the newest rendition.

And why should any other government agency get hold of something like this and push it to media? They wouldn't do that EVER, unless of course they are in bed with this "get rid of Trump" agenda that permeates the low brow DNC

a reply to: UKTruth

Except that is not what was happening. The withholding of aid was backed by several nations in order to remove a prosecutor who was NOT dealing with the corruption within the country and in not doing his duty was aiding Putin and Russia to gain control within Ukraine. They were not looking at Hunter BIden they were not even looking at the gas company he was working for. That was an investigation into the company not Biden that had been shelved already.
This is just more distraction from the issue of trump colluding and pressuring another country to interfere with our elections once again.
Trying to smear his opponent like he did in 16.

Wow how many times does it take before people open their eyes.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Extorris

It's not about Biden's sons' position, it's about Biden threatening to remove aid to Ukraine unless the investigation into his son was halted.

That would be deflection if it was true. As it stands your deflection lacks any evidence that the firing was related to his son holding a board position on one of the companies owned by an Oligarch that was at one time being investigated.

There is however a world of factual, historical and documentary evidence that IMF, EU, several world leaders, the US administration and the general public inside Ukraine who were protesting on the streets ALL wanted Shokin removed.

I suppose you can show me where the IMF, EU, USA and it's people were demanding that Ukraine help Donald Trump win an election before he released the Military Financial Aid appropriated by the US Congress?

Another good point. Yeah where is that evidence? lol But you know you are just talking to yourself here. No one is going to see this for what it is.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
So when did it arrive for review?

It didn't. It's not a normal process for the WH to place a review on approved funds. They took that pro-active step, it did not "arrive for review".

Review is an unusal step after it's been appropriated by congress and signed off in a Fiscal budget.

The Pentagon announced it would send the funds on June 18th 2019.

Then it took until August 28th when Lindsay Graham and other GOP senators publicly asked where the hell the money was.

The Trump admin then officially said they would place a hold and review it.

www.defense.gov...

www.rferl.org...

How did the Pentagon stop Congress?
That makes no sense.

a reply to: Extorris

Well you know this helps his buddy Vlad too. If Ukraine can't keep their eastern border secure Russia will just waltz right in like they did to Crimea in 14.
That and getting sanctions removed is the prime directive from his puppet master Putin.
All so he can have a hotel in Moscow. As if his name is going to be anything but mudd when we're done with him.

a reply to: shooterbrody
Ahh
Your "approved funds" are from the dod
NOT a separate bill from congress
So then the review is probably standard procedure
So from the "announcement" you linked to mid sept isnt bad for washington dc.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The payment was due in July.
They received it the second week of September. Even if it was due the last day of July that is still six weeks.
So yeah weeks.
www.defensenews.com...

a reply to: Sillyolme
With congress on recess for 6 weeks thats not too bad fot washington dc

a reply to: Extorris

The Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative began in 2016 and the aid continued each year since then.
This was not something that needed to be discussed and approved it already was. The deadline for the aid was out there already.
This was mob behavior. Extortion right out in the open.
And this Biden crap is just a distraction because he has been caught red handed this time.

a reply to: Extorris

but in fact the check was due in July.

a reply to: Sillyolme
The foreign minister ftom Ukraine says otherwise.
You are simply wrong.
No pressure.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Some time during the summer of 2018 would be a good guess. LOL.

It was approved a year ago.