Anonymous wrote:Why are Republicans so clueless about whistleblowers? If I work at a hospital and see evidence of massive Medicare fraud and turn it in as a whistleblower, once the authorities decide to investigate I am no longer relevant. The evidence is all that matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again - there is nothing in the whistleblower protection act that demands anonymity for the whistleblower.

In fact, if the House votes to impeach, I am certain he will be subpoenaed by the Senate.

He isn’t a “whistleblower”.

You aren’t “correct.”

What makes you believe he is a whistleblower?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again - there is nothing in the whistleblower protection act that demands anonymity for the whistleblower.

In fact, if the House votes to impeach, I am certain he will be subpoenaed by the Senate.

He isn’t a “whistleblower”.

You aren’t “correct.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again - there is nothing in the whistleblower protection act that demands anonymity for the whistleblower.

In fact, if the House votes to impeach, I am certain he will be subpoenaed by the Senate.

He isn’t a “whistleblower”.

Anonymous wrote:Once again - there is nothing in the whistleblower protection act that demands anonymity for the whistleblower.

In fact, if the House votes to impeach, I am certain he will be subpoenaed by the Senate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/06/whistleblowers-attorney-targeted-trump-old-tweets/

By total coincidence, one of the many people who have tweeted stuff about Trump is the go-to whistleblower lawyer in the country. How about that?

Are you suggesting the Ukraine "thing" is a fabrication?

I’m suggesting that it’s blown beyond the point of recognition. Trump did what Obama did to Israel regarding foreign aid. Regarding him wanting to get to the bottom of Ukraine’s meddling for Clinton in 2016? I think it’s a valid pursuit. Biden would not even be a part of this had his son not been involved with Burisma and in the China dealings. Anyone with half a brain can see that he got those positions because of his father. Not a crime in itself - don’t really care - but any liberal who thinks Biden got those positions because of his credentials is smoking too much DC weed.

Witholding congressionally authorized funds for personal gain is illegal on several fronts. Obama never did that.

Neither did Trump

You clearly haven't read the transcripts of the testimony given to date, if you honestly believe that.

I don’t suck up the testimony of people who have proven their loyalties lie with the Democratic Party, Clinton, Obama, etc.

Oh my gosh. This in a nutshell is what is wrong with this country.

DP. Honest question here...Is there any email/recording/memo etc where Trump says that the reason the funds were withheld, was to get the Ukrainians to investigate Biden?

Yes. He said "Talk to Rudy" and Rudy will tell you the details about what you need to investigate. And that is prefaced by him saying the U.S. has done plenty for Ukraine, and Ukraine owes him a favor before he will do anything else. Trump himself is too stupid to understand or remember the details of the conspiracy theories so he cannot articulate exactly what he wants investigated. He simplifies and exaggerates everything into good guys (sycophants) and bad guys (everybody else), so all he can say without a written script is that Biden talked to some bad people in Ukraine (anti-corruption reformers), and the good (corrupt) prosecutor was fired, and our woman ambassador was bad news (because she represented U.S. policy), and other simple-minded and Trump-centered statements in favor of the corrupt quid pro quo he was requesting.

Trump never coherently lays out the criminal plot in one sentence because he is too stupid to form that sentence, but his clear and obvious instruction, repeated several times, was for Zelensky to talk to Giuliani and do what Giuliani tells him to do.

That is all backed up a dozen or more times by Taylor, Volker, Sondland, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Sullivan, Vindman, Fiona Hill, and others that the money was being held up by Trump himself and that to get it, Ukraine had to issue a public statement about investigating 2016 and the Bidens that satisfied Rudy Giuliani. Volker and Sondland were helping to draft the statement. None of this is disputable on any factual basis.

Where does he say this?

IN THE “PERFECT CALL.” Almost verbatim.

Except he never says "before I do anything else".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/06/whistleblowers-attorney-targeted-trump-old-tweets/

By total coincidence, one of the many people who have tweeted stuff about Trump is the go-to whistleblower lawyer in the country. How about that?

Are you suggesting the Ukraine "thing" is a fabrication?

I’m suggesting that it’s blown beyond the point of recognition. Trump did what Obama did to Israel regarding foreign aid. Regarding him wanting to get to the bottom of Ukraine’s meddling for Clinton in 2016? I think it’s a valid pursuit. Biden would not even be a part of this had his son not been involved with Burisma and in the China dealings. Anyone with half a brain can see that he got those positions because of his father. Not a crime in itself - don’t really care - but any liberal who thinks Biden got those positions because of his credentials is smoking too much DC weed.

Witholding congressionally authorized funds for personal gain is illegal on several fronts. Obama never did that.

Neither did Trump

You clearly haven't read the transcripts of the testimony given to date, if you honestly believe that.

I don’t suck up the testimony of people who have proven their loyalties lie with the Democratic Party, Clinton, Obama, etc.

Oh my gosh. This in a nutshell is what is wrong with this country.

DP. Honest question here...Is there any email/recording/memo etc where Trump says that the reason the funds were withheld, was to get the Ukrainians to investigate Biden?

Yes. He said "Talk to Rudy" and Rudy will tell you the details about what you need to investigate. And that is prefaced by him saying the U.S. has done plenty for Ukraine, and Ukraine owes him a favor before he will do anything else. Trump himself is too stupid to understand or remember the details of the conspiracy theories so he cannot articulate exactly what he wants investigated. He simplifies and exaggerates everything into good guys (sycophants) and bad guys (everybody else), so all he can say without a written script is that Biden talked to some bad people in Ukraine (anti-corruption reformers), and the good (corrupt) prosecutor was fired, and our woman ambassador was bad news (because she represented U.S. policy), and other simple-minded and Trump-centered statements in favor of the corrupt quid pro quo he was requesting.

Trump never coherently lays out the criminal plot in one sentence because he is too stupid to form that sentence, but his clear and obvious instruction, repeated several times, was for Zelensky to talk to Giuliani and do what Giuliani tells him to do.

That is all backed up a dozen or more times by Taylor, Volker, Sondland, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Sullivan, Vindman, Fiona Hill, and others that the money was being held up by Trump himself and that to get it, Ukraine had to issue a public statement about investigating 2016 and the Bidens that satisfied Rudy Giuliani. Volker and Sondland were helping to draft the statement. None of this is disputable on any factual basis.

Where does he say this?

IN THE “PERFECT CALL.” Almost verbatim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/06/whistleblowers-attorney-targeted-trump-old-tweets/

By total coincidence, one of the many people who have tweeted stuff about Trump is the go-to whistleblower lawyer in the country. How about that?

Are you suggesting the Ukraine "thing" is a fabrication?

I’m suggesting that it’s blown beyond the point of recognition. Trump did what Obama did to Israel regarding foreign aid. Regarding him wanting to get to the bottom of Ukraine’s meddling for Clinton in 2016? I think it’s a valid pursuit. Biden would not even be a part of this had his son not been involved with Burisma and in the China dealings. Anyone with half a brain can see that he got those positions because of his father. Not a crime in itself - don’t really care - but any liberal who thinks Biden got those positions because of his credentials is smoking too much DC weed.

Witholding congressionally authorized funds for personal gain is illegal on several fronts. Obama never did that.

Neither did Trump

You clearly haven't read the transcripts of the testimony given to date, if you honestly believe that.

I don’t suck up the testimony of people who have proven their loyalties lie with the Democratic Party, Clinton, Obama, etc.

Oh my gosh. This in a nutshell is what is wrong with this country.

DP. Honest question here...Is there any email/recording/memo etc where Trump says that the reason the funds were withheld, was to get the Ukrainians to investigate Biden?

Yes. He said "Talk to Rudy" and Rudy will tell you the details about what you need to investigate. And that is prefaced by him saying the U.S. has done plenty for Ukraine, and Ukraine owes him a favor before he will do anything else. Trump himself is too stupid to understand or remember the details of the conspiracy theories so he cannot articulate exactly what he wants investigated. He simplifies and exaggerates everything into good guys (sycophants) and bad guys (everybody else), so all he can say without a written script is that Biden talked to some bad people in Ukraine (anti-corruption reformers), and the good (corrupt) prosecutor was fired, and our woman ambassador was bad news (because she represented U.S. policy), and other simple-minded and Trump-centered statements in favor of the corrupt quid pro quo he was requesting.

Trump never coherently lays out the criminal plot in one sentence because he is too stupid to form that sentence, but his clear and obvious instruction, repeated several times, was for Zelensky to talk to Giuliani and do what Giuliani tells him to do.

That is all backed up a dozen or more times by Taylor, Volker, Sondland, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Sullivan, Vindman, Fiona Hill, and others that the money was being held up by Trump himself and that to get it, Ukraine had to issue a public statement about investigating 2016 and the Bidens that satisfied Rudy Giuliani. Volker and Sondland were helping to draft the statement. None of this is disputable on any factual basis.

Where does he say this?

IN THE “PERFECT CALL.” Almost verbatim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/06/whistleblowers-attorney-targeted-trump-old-tweets/

By total coincidence, one of the many people who have tweeted stuff about Trump is the go-to whistleblower lawyer in the country. How about that?

Are you suggesting the Ukraine "thing" is a fabrication?

I’m suggesting that it’s blown beyond the point of recognition. Trump did what Obama did to Israel regarding foreign aid. Regarding him wanting to get to the bottom of Ukraine’s meddling for Clinton in 2016? I think it’s a valid pursuit. Biden would not even be a part of this had his son not been involved with Burisma and in the China dealings. Anyone with half a brain can see that he got those positions because of his father. Not a crime in itself - don’t really care - but any liberal who thinks Biden got those positions because of his credentials is smoking too much DC weed.

Witholding congressionally authorized funds for personal gain is illegal on several fronts. Obama never did that.

Neither did Trump

You clearly haven't read the transcripts of the testimony given to date, if you honestly believe that.

I don’t suck up the testimony of people who have proven their loyalties lie with the Democratic Party, Clinton, Obama, etc.

Oh my gosh. This in a nutshell is what is wrong with this country.

DP. Honest question here...Is there any email/recording/memo etc where Trump says that the reason the funds were withheld, was to get the Ukrainians to investigate Biden?

Yes. He said "Talk to Rudy" and Rudy will tell you the details about what you need to investigate. And that is prefaced by him saying the U.S. has done plenty for Ukraine, and Ukraine owes him a favor before he will do anything else. Trump himself is too stupid to understand or remember the details of the conspiracy theories so he cannot articulate exactly what he wants investigated. He simplifies and exaggerates everything into good guys (sycophants) and bad guys (everybody else), so all he can say without a written script is that Biden talked to some bad people in Ukraine (anti-corruption reformers), and the good (corrupt) prosecutor was fired, and our woman ambassador was bad news (because she represented U.S. policy), and other simple-minded and Trump-centered statements in favor of the corrupt quid pro quo he was requesting.

Trump never coherently lays out the criminal plot in one sentence because he is too stupid to form that sentence, but his clear and obvious instruction, repeated several times, was for Zelensky to talk to Giuliani and do what Giuliani tells him to do.

That is all backed up a dozen or more times by Taylor, Volker, Sondland, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Sullivan, Vindman, Fiona Hill, and others that the money was being held up by Trump himself and that to get it, Ukraine had to issue a public statement about investigating 2016 and the Bidens that satisfied Rudy Giuliani. Volker and Sondland were helping to draft the statement. None of this is disputable on any factual basis.

Where does he say this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/06/whistleblowers-attorney-targeted-trump-old-tweets/

By total coincidence, one of the many people who have tweeted stuff about Trump is the go-to whistleblower lawyer in the country. How about that?

Are you suggesting the Ukraine "thing" is a fabrication?

I’m suggesting that it’s blown beyond the point of recognition. Trump did what Obama did to Israel regarding foreign aid. Regarding him wanting to get to the bottom of Ukraine’s meddling for Clinton in 2016? I think it’s a valid pursuit. Biden would not even be a part of this had his son not been involved with Burisma and in the China dealings. Anyone with half a brain can see that he got those positions because of his father. Not a crime in itself - don’t really care - but any liberal who thinks Biden got those positions because of his credentials is smoking too much DC weed.

Witholding congressionally authorized funds for personal gain is illegal on several fronts. Obama never did that.

Neither did Trump

You clearly haven't read the transcripts of the testimony given to date, if you honestly believe that.

I don’t suck up the testimony of people who have proven their loyalties lie with the Democratic Party, Clinton, Obama, etc.

Oh my gosh. This in a nutshell is what is wrong with this country.

DP. Honest question here...Is there any email/recording/memo etc where Trump says that the reason the funds were withheld, was to get the Ukrainians to investigate Biden?

Yes. He said "Talk to Rudy" and Rudy will tell you the details about what you need to investigate. And that is prefaced by him saying the U.S. has done plenty for Ukraine, and Ukraine owes him a favor before he will do anything else. Trump himself is too stupid to understand or remember the details of the conspiracy theories so he cannot articulate exactly what he wants investigated. He simplifies and exaggerates everything into good guys (sycophants) and bad guys (everybody else), so all he can say without a written script is that Biden talked to some bad people in Ukraine (anti-corruption reformers), and the good (corrupt) prosecutor was fired, and our woman ambassador was bad news (because she represented U.S. policy), and other simple-minded and Trump-centered statements in favor of the corrupt quid pro quo he was requesting.

Trump never coherently lays out the criminal plot in one sentence because he is too stupid to form that sentence, but his clear and obvious instruction, repeated several times, was for Zelensky to talk to Giuliani and do what Giuliani tells him to do.

That is all backed up a dozen or more times by Taylor, Volker, Sondland, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Sullivan, Vindman, Fiona Hill, and others that the money was being held up by Trump himself and that to get it, Ukraine had to issue a public statement about investigating 2016 and the Bidens that satisfied Rudy Giuliani. Volker and Sondland were helping to draft the statement. None of this is disputable on any factual basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/06/whistleblowers-attorney-targeted-trump-old-tweets/

By total coincidence, one of the many people who have tweeted stuff about Trump is the go-to whistleblower lawyer in the country. How about that?

Are you suggesting the Ukraine "thing" is a fabrication?

I’m suggesting that it’s blown beyond the point of recognition. Trump did what Obama did to Israel regarding foreign aid. Regarding him wanting to get to the bottom of Ukraine’s meddling for Clinton in 2016? I think it’s a valid pursuit. Biden would not even be a part of this had his son not been involved with Burisma and in the China dealings. Anyone with half a brain can see that he got those positions because of his father. Not a crime in itself - don’t really care - but any liberal who thinks Biden got those positions because of his credentials is smoking too much DC weed.

Witholding congressionally authorized funds for personal gain is illegal on several fronts. Obama never did that.

Neither did Trump

You clearly haven't read the transcripts of the testimony given to date, if you honestly believe that.

I don’t suck up the testimony of people who have proven their loyalties lie with the Democratic Party, Clinton, Obama, etc.

Oh my gosh. This in a nutshell is what is wrong with this country.

DP. Honest question here...Is there any email/recording/memo etc where Trump says that the reason the funds were withheld, was to get the Ukrainians to investigate Biden?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/06/whistleblowers-attorney-targeted-trump-old-tweets/

By total coincidence, one of the many people who have tweeted stuff about Trump is the go-to whistleblower lawyer in the country. How about that?

And?

Are you under the misimpression that lawyers aren't allowed to have personal opinions about politics? Or that lawyers never take cases that are consistent with their personal opinions?

Read his tweets. It's not about politics. It's about a coup. His words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/06/whistleblowers-attorney-targeted-trump-old-tweets/

By total coincidence, one of the many people who have tweeted stuff about Trump is the go-to whistleblower lawyer in the country. How about that?

And?

Are you under the misimpression that lawyers aren't allowed to have personal opinions about politics? Or that lawyers never take cases that are consistent with their personal opinions?