Jump to content

What's going on with this DNI Whistleblower ?

triplehorn

By triplehorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Js1
Js1

I'm sure you took both sides of that debate. 

Crusher
Crusher

First off there was no extortion. That was not in the transcript. No quid pro quo. Why do you make up shit? Who do you think you are, Adam Schiff?  

Post Oak
Post Oak

I spent a lot of time thinking about this, unfortunately. You have to have so little self-respect that you are ok being lied to over and over.  You have to be ok with being told what to do.  You

Posted Images

Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Like clockwork the Trump defenders take their republican talking points propaganda and shout “everybody does it!” Which somehow makes the crimes acceptable.

Dbeasy - tomorrow, if Putin says he has the Trump piss party tapes, do you want to see them? If Puting says he has evidence of collusion, do you want to see it?  If Ukraine has evidence of Joe Biden commiting a crime, don't you want to see that? 

It's so ordinary that we have treaties to establish procedures for executing investigations jointly with foreign governments. They're call Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. It happens all the time. If important information comes from Breitbart or the NY Times, the source of the information is not material - its accuracy is. That's not partisanship - it's basic logic. 

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Well, for starters there is the violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30121 (the FECA of 1971), which is a crime if the value exceeds $2,000 (18 U.S.C. § 602).

Thank you for at least identifying a potential crime. I disagree, for obvious reasons - he was engaging in the legitimate execution of his duties. It's a huge stretch to suggest he was asking for a campaign donation. The predicate for his inquiry was significant.

If I were to give $10 to Hamas, I would have committed a crime. Obama gave billions to fund terrorism, but it wasn't a crime. Because it was part of his official duties. It was government policy, that I disagreed with. But I didn't run around saying "let's charge Obama with funding terrorism". Because it was in the course of his official duties as president.

Obama literally executed at least one American citizen. Nobody said charge him with murder. Nobody said impeach him. He had a duty as commander in chief and he executed it as he saw fit.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Fuck You 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

in an interview with denny heck, it sounded like the testimony was not good for trump (shocking).  and generally, he said she was extremely impressive through 9 hours.  having her go after yovanovich was the move.

Poor Matt Gaetz. No wonder he was so unhappy he got kicked out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
Posted
13 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's so ordinary that we have treaties to establish procedures for executing investigations jointly with foreign governments. They're call Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. It happens all the time. If important information comes from Breitbart or the NY Times, the source of the information is not material - its accuracy is. That's not partisanship - it's basic logic. 

^^^ Wake Up.  That's not what happened here.  Running Covert Propaganda Against Americans Is Illegal. Trump Tried It Anyway.

 

---> The most important feature of the back and forth between the State Department and Ukraine is their insistence that the public announcement comes from Ukraine alone. It’s not unusual for U.S. officials to be involved in crafting a statement with a foreign country, but typically they are publicly issued as joint statements. Here, however, nothing about the proposed statement, which was drafted and proposed by the State Department in coordination with Giuliani, indicated that the U.S. precipitated or participated in its creation in any way. In intelligence terms, this is called black propaganda."

 

---> This is explicitly against the law. The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act prohibits the U.S. government from using covert actions — which include propaganda — to “influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4726

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Thank you for at least identifying a potential crime. I disagree, for obvious reasons - he was engaging in the legitimate execution of his duties. 

If I were to give $10 to Hamas, I would have committed a crime. Obama gave billions to fund terrorism, but it wasn't a crime. Because it was part of his official duties. It was government policy, that I disagreed with. But I didn't run around saying "let's charge Obama with funding terrorism". Because it was in the course of his official duties as president.

Obama literally executed at least one American citizen. Nobody said charge him with murder. Nobody said impeach him. He had a duty as commander in chief and he executed it as he saw fit.

What if Obama had ordered the military to execute Donald Trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46479

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Thank you for at least identifying a potential crime. I disagree, for obvious reasons - he was engaging in the legitimate execution of his duties. It's a huge stretch to suggest he was asking for a campaign donation.

You're either a liar, stupid, or both.  Which is it?  Multiple choice.  (A), (B), or (C).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46479

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

in an interview with denny heck, it sounded like the testimony was not good for trump (shocking).  

Heck should run for POTUS.  I saw him interviewed on CNN the other day, and he was refreshingly candid and on point.  No histrionics, no equivocating, just the facts as he saw them, without the typical bluster most legislators gin up for TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Probably was pointed out upthread, but the reason the minority party in the House, the R's, are pitching such a fit insisting the depositions be public right now is so that their co-conspirators don't trip over their dicks with lies.  They can't reliably alter their testimony to fit what's been revealed when not knowing how much and what is being testified to House committees before their turn.  fuck 'em.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Dbeasy - tomorrow, if Putin says he has the Trump piss party tapes, do you want to see them? If Puting says he has evidence of collusion, do you want to see it?  If Ukraine has evidence of Joe Biden commiting a crime, don't you want to see that? 

It's so ordinary that we have treaties to establish procedures for executing investigations jointly with foreign governments. They're call Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. It happens all the time. If important information comes from Breitbart or the NY Times, the source of the information is not material - its accuracy is. That's not partisanship - it's basic logic. 

There isn't any real evidence, otherwise they would show it. Now they don't "need" the whistleblower to testify....lulz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46479

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Probably was pointed out upthread, but the reason the minority party in the House, the R's, are pitching such a fit insisting the depositions be public right now is so that their co-conspirators don't trip over their dicks with lies.  They can't reliably alter their testimony to fit what's been revealed when not knowing how much and what is being testified to House committees before their turn.  fuck 'em.

Oh, absolutely.  They're flying blind and it's freaking them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

abuse of power.  he used the power of his office to withhold $400mm of foreign military aid (taxpayer money, not his own money) until it was confirmed to him that a foreign country was conducting an investigation into a domestic political rival and his family.

hmm, @Thetexashammer

shocked you didn't respond here, since i answered your question directly.  that seems to be a reoccurring theme for you.

i wouldn't respond either if i was making your garbage argument.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4726

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, triplehorn said:

and this one:

Keep in mind that Trump/Rudy wanted Zelensky/Ukraine to announce investigation into Biden on their own, with NO mention of its inception being a joint effort with the WH/Barr DOJ.

It's a better scam that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90056

Posted
Posted

Today will be Infrastructure Week.  Sondland is way out over his skies and realizes it.  Also, not going to be the last one without a chair when the music stops.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/sondland-testify-trump-directed-giuliani-push-ukraine-scheme-n1067986

Quote

Sondland to testify that Trump directed Giuliani to push Ukraine scheme

"My understanding was that the president directed Mr. Giuliani’s participation, that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the concerns of the president," he'll say, according to prepared testimony obtained by NBC News.

Quote

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland will tell Congress on Thursday that Rudy Giuliani told him President Donald Trump wanted Ukraine’s new government to investigate both the 2016 election and a natural gas firm tied to Hunter Biden, according to prepared testimony obtained by NBC News.

Sondland will testify that Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, even mentioned getting the Ukrainians to investigate "the DNC server" — a reference to a Democratic National Committee computer that plays prominently in a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference in 2016.

The ambassador is expected to tell House investigators that he ultimately learned that Giuliani, far from freelancing, was advancing Trump’s goals when he pushed for Ukraine to investigate the president’s political opponents.

"My understanding was that the president directed Mr. Giuliani’s participation, that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the concerns of the president," Sondland plans to say, according to the prepared testimony.

Quote

Nonetheless, Sondland casts blame directly on the president in the 18-page statement he plans to read to House lawmakers before answering their questions in closed-door session. He also chastises his employer— the State Department — for trying to block his testimony.

Quote

In the prepared testimony, he repeatedly says he was "disappointed" in Trump’s decision-making on Ukraine and Giuliani’s involvement and asserts the president was in a "bad mood" the day Trump told Sondland by phone there were no quid pro quos involved in granting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a coveted meeting with Trump.

Although likely to be challenged by lawmakers on several fronts, Sondland’s testimony paints a damning portrait of a troika of senior officials — Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker — begrudgingly engaging with Giuliani against their better instincts, out of desperation to advance U.S.-Ukraine relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10463

Posted
Posted
On 10/14/2019 at 11:58 PM, conVINCEd said:

Y’all are aware that the ignore feature exists, right?

Sure. But having these idiots around helps the rest of us know what talking points we may face when confronted by them in real life. We don't have to unpack all the bullshit in real time. We can quickly shut them down and send them back to their safe-spaces on the internet. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90056

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Sondland sure has floated a lot of trial balloons on what he plans to testify to, I'll believe it when he actually goes on the record instead of repeatedly leaking what he plans to say.

Out of most of the people around this little scandal, he arguably has the most to lose financially.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90056

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Sondland sure has floated a lot of trial balloons on what he plans to testify to, I'll believe it when he actually goes on the record instead of repeatedly leaking what he plans to say.

Sondland must have lawyered up and been told to make sure everybody knows it was Trump and Rudy.   This is the opening  statement that was leaked/whatever   

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/politics/sondland-deposition-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

Quote

US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland was directed by President Donald Trump to work with Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine, he told Congress on Thursday, and was left with a choice: Abandon efforts to bolster a key strategic alliance or work to satisfy the demands of the President's personal lawyer.

Sondland said he wasn't aware until "much later" that Giuliani's agenda might have included an effort to "prompt the Ukrainians" to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter and to involve the Ukrainians in the President's campaign, according to his opening statement, which was obtained by CNN in advance of the deposition.

Quote

"Based on the President's direction, we were faced with a choice: We could abandon the goal of a White House meeting for President Zelensky, which we all believed was crucial to strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian ties and furthering long-held U.S. foreign policy goals in the region; or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to Mr. Giuliani to address the President's concerns," Sondland said in his opening statement. 

Quote

"We chose the latter path, which seemed to all of us -- Secretary (Rick) Perry, Ambassador (Kurt) Volker, and myself -- to be the better alternative," Sondland continued. "But I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President's 2020 reelection campaign."

Quote

"I was not on that July 25, 2019 call and I did not see a transcript of that call until September 25, 2019, when the White House publicly released it," Sondland said. "None of the brief and general call summaries I received contained any mention of Burisma or former Vice President Biden, nor even suggested that President Trump had made any kind of request of President Zelensky."

 

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

So Mulvaney's out front of the White House admitting that aid was withheld in order to get Ukraine to look into the server, basically admitting to half of the allegations.  It looks like they've decided to go with the "yeah, we did it, and we're going to tell you it wasn't inappropriate also hillary's emails and obama tan suit" strategy.  

fixed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90056

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

So Mulvaney's out front of the White House admitting that aid was withheld in order to get Ukraine to look into the server, basically admitting to half of the allegations.  It looks like they've decided to go with the "yeah, we did it, and we're going to tell you it wasn't inappropriate" strategy.  

I guess their strategy is to roll the dice and put it in the hands of the Senate.  They probably have enough dirt on enough Senators, including Mitch, that they either go free, or bring everybody down.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46479

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Closed door deposition. Exactly like the Rs did with Benghazi witnesses, but now it’s a secretive process with no due process because...

Please elaborate . . . I don't remember the details.  How were subpoenas issued, witnesses examined & cross-examined, etc.?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...