Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistleblower Doesn't Want to Testify

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whistleblower Doesn't Want to Testify

    House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually testify about it...Meanwhile, once the House impeaches Trump - which it most certainly will - the tables will turn in the Senate, which will hold a mandatory trial. Not only will the GOP-Senators controlling the proceedings be able to subpoena documents and other evidence, they'll be able to compel Ciaramella, the Bidens, Chalupa and any other witnesses they desire as we head into the 2020 US election.

    The trail in the Senate will expose the Democrat party's lies and cover-ups.

    Read the full story here and the name of the Whistleblower:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ons-house-amid

    This is going to backfire on the Democrats big time and they will lose their control of the House in 2020. Also, it will not be long until the Inspector General's Report on the FISA Warrant comes out, and that report will also be devastating to the Democrats.

  • #2
    Colin Lokey, also known as “Tyler Durden,” is breaking the first rule of Fight Club: You do not talk about Fight Club. ... Following an acrimonious departure this month, in which two-thirds of [ZeroHedge’s three writers] traded allegations of hypocrisy and mental instability, Lokey, 32, decided to unmask himself and his fellow Durdens. Lokey said the other two men are Daniel Ivandjiiski, 37, the Bulgarian-born former analyst long reputed to be behind the site, and Tim Backshall, 45, a well-known credit derivatives strategist.

    The “allegations of hypocrisy” apparently stemmed from the fact that, although each of these men wrote for a website that purports to speak for voiceless individuals struggling under the domination of global capitalism, all three men’s Zero Hedge salaries were in fact pretty sweet, and maintaining the cash flow required chasing web traffic

    https://gawker.com/blog-drama-anonym...tra-1773817458



    They're merely following P.T. Barnum's advice.
    This message is hidden because ...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      Colin Lokey, also known as “Tyler Durden,” is breaking the first rule of Fight Club: You do not talk about Fight Club. ...
      You attack the messenger in the hope that no one will notice that you ignored the message.

      Your delusions are going to be shattered when the Senate Republicans question the so-called Whistleblower and exposes his part in the Democrat's efforts to get the Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 Presidental election.

      Do you know how to spell C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
        You attack the messenger in the hope that no one will notice that you ignored the message.
        You can find someone on the net to say just about anything. But if you hang out at those places, you're going to be continuously misled.

        Your delusions are going to be shattered when the Senate Republicans question the so-called Whistleblower and exposes his part in the Democrat's efforts to get the Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 Presidental election.
        Col. Vindman was briefly attacked by some of Trump's allies, but then it suddenly stopped. Can you guess why? The colonel is a decorated war veteran and a patriot. The optics of them defending a draft dodger and a grifter by attacking Vindman were so bad, they gave up.

        Do you know how to spell C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N?
        Q-U-I-D P-R-O Q-U-O
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          The colonel is a decorated war veteran and a patriot. The optics of them defending a draft dodger and a grifter by attacking Vindman were so bad, they gave up.

          Q-U-I-D P-R-O Q-U-O
          The Colonel was unable to give any evidence at all that there was a "quid pro quo."

          D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
            The Colonel was unable to give any evidence at all that there was a "quid pro quo."
            You've been misled about that:

            Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified Tuesday that he believed President Trump blocked military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s family, according to CNN.

            Vindman said he believed there was a quid pro quo in place by July 10 after a meeting between American and Ukrainian officials. During the meeting, Vindman said Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian officials they needed to ensure “specific investigations in order to secure the meeting” with Trump.

            https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...-ukrainian-aid

            So it wasn't just Vindman who noticed.
            This message is hidden because ...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
              House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually testify about it...Meanwhile, once the House impeaches Trump - which it most certainly will - the tables will turn in the Senate, which will hold a mandatory trial. Not only will the GOP-Senators controlling the proceedings be able to subpoena documents and other evidence, they'll be able to compel Ciaramella, the Bidens, Chalupa and any other witnesses they desire as we head into the 2020 US election.

              The trail in the Senate will expose the Democrat party's lies and cover-ups.

              Read the full story here and the name of the Whistleblower:

              https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ons-house-amid

              This is going to backfire on the Democrats big time and they will lose their control of the House in 2020. Also, it will not be long until the Inspector General's Report on the FISA Warrant comes out, and that report will also be devastating to the Democrats.
              Given that this President and the Republicans are refusing to provide documents and witnesses subpoenaed by the House, why would "Jerry Shugart" expect the Bidens, the Whistleblower, etc to comply with those issued by the Republican controlled Senate?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jgarden View Post
                Given that this President and the Republicans are refusing to provide documents and witnesses subpoenaed by the House, why would "Jerry Shugart" expect the Bidens, the Whistleblower, etc to comply with those issued by the Republican controlled Senate?
                Because the Bidens and the people who turned in Trump are Americans who believe in America and the rule of law.
                This message is hidden because ...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jgarden View Post
                  Given that this President and the Republicans are refusing to provide documents and witnesses subpoenaed by the House, why would "Jerry Shugart" expect the Bidens, the Whistleblower, etc to comply with those issued by the Republican controlled Senate?
                  Good question. Regardless of the fact that we all know this is just another trump conspiracy theory, they are under no obligation to cooperate with the GOP.
                  A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man
                  we can trust with nuclear weapons.

                  Bill Clinton






                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                    You've been misled about that:
                    Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified Tuesday that he believed President Trump blocked military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into former Vice President.
                    He can believe anything he wants but believing it and proving it are two different things. Where is the proof?

                    He cited absolutely nothing which he heard in the phone conversation which spoke of a "quid pro quo" because he didn't hear anything about that. If he would have he would have told us exactly what he heard that proves there was indeed a "quid pro quo." So his silence about that demonstrates that he has no actual proof.

                    Believing something is true is not the same thing as proving it is true.

                    But you progressives are just like the Soviets in that a person possesses no presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

                    That was demonstrated loud and clear in the Kavanaugh hearing. You people should be ashamed of yourselves because in your self-righteousness you convict others of things without any proof.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jgarden View Post
                      Given that this President and the Republicans are refusing to provide documents and witnesses subpoenaed by the House...
                      In your ignorance you know nothing about the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. No one can demand such documents and witnesses because they are just fishing for something so that they can disenfranchise 70 million voters who voted for Trump in 2016. Like many progressives you think that what is written in the Constitution can be trampled upon if it suits your purposes.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                        In your ignorance you know nothing about the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. No one can demand such documents and witnesses because they are just fishing for something so that they can disenfranchise 70 million voters who voted for Trump in 2016. Like many progressives you think that what is written in the Constitution can be trampled upon if it suits your purposes.
                        If you're that concerned about separation of powers, you'll be concerned that Trump wanted the DOJ to go after his political enemies...

                        right? 'Cause you're that concerned?

                        Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Barbarian observes:
                          You've been misled about that:
                          Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified Tuesday that he believed President Trump blocked military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into former Vice President.

                          Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                          He can believe anything he wants but believing it and proving it are two different things. Where is the proof?
                          They've got the transcript of the call. Fox News reports:



                          Believing something is untrue is not the same thing as proving it is untrue. But in this case, even Fox has shown that Trump committed a crime, and clearly documented that the president is required to comply with the whistleblower law.

                          But you Trump loyalists are just like the Soviets in that a person possesses no presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

                          As the judge says, bribery or solicitation of a bribe is explicitly impeachable in the Constitution.
                          This message is hidden because ...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                            In your ignorance you know nothing about the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. No one can demand such documents and witnesses because they are just fishing for something so that they can disenfranchise 70 million voters who voted for Trump in 2016. Like many progressives you think that what is written in the Constitution can be trampled upon if it suits your purposes.
                            The law says the whistleblower information will be sent to Congress. No exceptions.
                            This message is hidden because ...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              As the judge says, bribery or solicitation of a bribe is explicitly impeachable in the Constitution.
                              Please state the evidence that Trump bribed or solicited a bribe in the phone call.

                              Can you spell D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X