Anonymous wrote:Incorrect information in the whistleblower's complaint....

The complaint stated that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike" -- a request that does not appear in the declassified transcript of the call released by the Trump administration on Tuesday. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike, but did not demand the server.

And according to the whistleblower complaint, by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to "contain the damage" from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine.

But a July 19 text message conversation from Volker to Giuliani, provided to Fox News on Thursday, showed that Volker had in fact encouraged Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine -- even sending Giuliani a message reading, "connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky."

Additionally, the complaint said Trump "suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep" his current prosecutor general, a claim not supported by the transcript.

CBS News reported late Thursday that the whistleblower complaint further inaccurately claimed that a State Department official was on the call with Zelensky.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-whistleblowers-sources-citing-apparent-white-house-leak-problem

Anonymous wrote:Incorrect information in the whistleblower's complaint....

The complaint stated that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike" -- a request that does not appear in the declassified transcript of the call released by the Trump administration on Tuesday. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike, but did not demand the server.

And according to the whistleblower complaint, by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to "contain the damage" from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine.

But a July 19 text message conversation from Volker to Giuliani, provided to Fox News on Thursday, showed that Volker had in fact encouraged Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine -- even sending Giuliani a message reading, "connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky."

Additionally, the complaint said Trump "suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep" his current prosecutor general, a claim not supported by the transcript.

CBS News reported late Thursday that the whistleblower complaint further inaccurately claimed that a State Department official was on the call with Zelensky.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-whistleblowers-sources-citing-apparent-white-house-leak-problem

Anonymous wrote:Incorrect information in the whistleblower's complaint....

The complaint stated that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike" -- a request that does not appear in the declassified transcript of the call released by the Trump administration on Tuesday. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike, but did not demand the server.

And according to the whistleblower complaint, by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to "contain the damage" from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine.

But a July 19 text message conversation from Volker to Giuliani, provided to Fox News on Thursday, showed that Volker had in fact encouraged Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine -- even sending Giuliani a message reading, "connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky."

Additionally, the complaint said Trump "suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep" his current prosecutor general, a claim not supported by the transcript.

CBS News reported late Thursday that the whistleblower complaint further inaccurately claimed that a State Department official was on the call with Zelensky.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-whistleblowers-sources-citing-apparent-white-house-leak-problem

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where was the whistleblower today? Why did we get Adam Schiff? Why can't the whistleblower himself be asked questions?

Schiff knows who the whistleblower is and so does his staff. Many of the news articles cited by the whistleblower are the same news articles cited by Adam Schiff.

Seems Schiff is a leaker and should release his phone records.

The whistleblower complaint was written like a lawyer. One of his lawyers worked for Schumer and Clinton. Why did the whistleblower pick THAT lawyer?

One of his lawyers interned for Schumer for five months and for Clinton for five months, seemingly while he was in college. Long before he went to law school. If you have to work that hard to create an appearance of bias, you fail.

But he didn't intern for Rs now did he?

Because there were no R Senators where he lived.

You can intern for any senator you want.

More convienient to intern for New York Senators when you’re at Syracuse.

The complaint stated that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike" -- a request that does not appear in the declassified transcript of the call released by the Trump administration on Tuesday. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike, but did not demand the server.

And according to the whistleblower complaint, by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to "contain the damage" from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine.

But a July 19 text message conversation from Volker to Giuliani, provided to Fox News on Thursday, showed that Volker had in fact encouraged Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine -- even sending Giuliani a message reading, "connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky."

Additionally, the complaint said Trump "suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep" his current prosecutor general, a claim not supported by the transcript.

CBS News reported late Thursday that the whistleblower complaint further inaccurately claimed that a State Department official was on the call with Zelensky.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If someone has leaked that the President is doing impeachable things, what's really important here is that we investigate the President, not protect him...

...riiight?

We can punish the leaker at our leisure thereafter. Or congratulate him on catching something impeachable, but also train him on the due process of whistle-blowing. Or whatever. But the POINT IS THAT WE CATCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO ENSURE THEY DO NOT RE-OCCUR.

If this was a Democratic President, some of you posters would have no problem understanding this

There is NOTHING impeachable here. That doesn't mean the Dems won't try.

Abuse of power is impeachable, as is the coverup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/biggest-bombshells-in-trump-whistleblower-complaint-cover-up.html

Well, since there was no abuse of power and no cover up, then there is no there there.

? You didn't even bother to read the article. How Trump-like.

-- White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by a July 25 phone call Trump had with Zelensky. There were discussions “with White House lawyers because of the likelihood,” in the minds of officials, “that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.” [abuse of power]

[coverup]
-- Senior White House officials intervened to “lock down” records of the call with Zelensky, which “underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

-- White House lawyers directed White House officials to remove the electronic transcript of the Zelensky call from the computer system where such transcripts normally are stored. That transcript then was loaded into a “separate electronic system” that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

When there is a reason to lock down the calls and store the transcript on a separate server, there is no coverup. And, there were reasons.
And, the first bullet is total hearsay. Third hand hearsay. Of course the whistleblower will not be held accountable for anything that is false in his complaint because he can claim that whatever was written there is what he heard.
This is why hearsay evidence is not admissible. Because, false information can be promoted without consequence.

Uh huh.

You think it's all hunky dory for Trump to pursue his personal interest at the expense of the country's interest.

I don't.

Personal interest? You mean Ukraine's role in influencing the 2016 election? You think that is HIS personal interest?

Uhhh...did Trump run for election in 2016 or not? Was he not personally vested in the outcome of the 2016 election or not? Is he running for 2020 or not? Does he not have a personal interest in the outcome of the 2020 election or not?

This is just rich. I read here all the time - "so, what is Trump doing about meddling in the 2020 election?"
So, he wants to find out exactly what Ukraine did in 2016 to make sure they won't do it again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If someone has leaked that the President is doing impeachable things, what's really important here is that we investigate the President, not protect him...

...riiight?

We can punish the leaker at our leisure thereafter. Or congratulate him on catching something impeachable, but also train him on the due process of whistle-blowing. Or whatever. But the POINT IS THAT WE CATCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO ENSURE THEY DO NOT RE-OCCUR.

If this was a Democratic President, some of you posters would have no problem understanding this

There is NOTHING impeachable here. That doesn't mean the Dems won't try.

Abuse of power is impeachable, as is the coverup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/biggest-bombshells-in-trump-whistleblower-complaint-cover-up.html

Well, since there was no abuse of power and no cover up, then there is no there there.

? You didn't even bother to read the article. How Trump-like.

-- White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by a July 25 phone call Trump had with Zelensky. There were discussions “with White House lawyers because of the likelihood,” in the minds of officials, “that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.” [abuse of power]

[coverup]
-- Senior White House officials intervened to “lock down” records of the call with Zelensky, which “underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

-- White House lawyers directed White House officials to remove the electronic transcript of the Zelensky call from the computer system where such transcripts normally are stored. That transcript then was loaded into a “separate electronic system” that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

When there is a reason to lock down the calls and store the transcript on a separate server, there is no coverup. And, there were reasons.
And, the first bullet is total hearsay. Third hand hearsay. Of course the whistleblower will not be held accountable for anything that is false in his complaint because he can claim that whatever was written there is what he heard.
This is why hearsay evidence is not admissible. Because, false information can be promoted without consequence.

Uh huh.

You think it's all hunky dory for Trump to pursue his personal interest at the expense of the country's interest.

I don't.

Personal interest? You mean Ukraine's role in influencing the 2016 election? You think that is HIS personal interest?

Uhhh...did Trump run for election in 2016 or not? Was he not personally vested in the outcome of the 2016 election or not? Is he running for 2020 or not? Does he not have a personal interest in the outcome of the 2020 election or not?

Did you miss the part where Ukraine admitted to helping CLINTON in the 2016 election?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where was the whistleblower today? Why did we get Adam Schiff? Why can't the whistleblower himself be asked questions?

Schiff knows who the whistleblower is and so does his staff. Many of the news articles cited by the whistleblower are the same news articles cited by Adam Schiff.

Seems Schiff is a leaker and should release his phone records.

The whistleblower complaint was written like a lawyer. One of his lawyers worked for Schumer and Clinton. Why did the whistleblower pick THAT lawyer?

One of his lawyers interned for Schumer for five months and for Clinton for five months, seemingly while he was in college. Long before he went to law school. If you have to work that hard to create an appearance of bias, you fail.

But he didn't intern for Rs now did he?

Because there were no R Senators where he lived.

You can intern for any senator you want.

More convienient to intern for New York Senators when you’re at Syracuse.

And, to intern with people you are ideologically on par with.

Honestly I don't understand this line of attack.

Whistleblower needs a lawyer. Do you expect him/her to hire a Trump supporter to be his lawyer? Who cares if his lawyer had contact with Schumer and Clinton years ago? What does that even suggest to you? To me it suggests the lawyer has a lot of connections and is probably sharp.

If you truly have something egregious, then what party the lawyer is should not matter.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, someone explain this: Russia knew that Trump had told his officials not to go to Zelensky's inauguration. They reported it on Russian TV in May. American media didn't know it, but the whistleblower complaint confirms that Trump told Pence not to go.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1177234658058285056

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone here tell me why Pelosi announced impeachment when the transcript had not been released?

Answer: She and Dems had the report of the whistleblower, which looked damaging. They didn't expect for Trump to release the actual transcript. When he did, it created an incongruence between what the whistleblower said he said, and what he actually said. So then, there had to be a re-interpretation of the transcript to fit the whistleblower's report. The most comment reinterpretation is that it was altered.

The buffoon in the OO admitted he extorted the president of Ukraine...with US resources as leverage. You add that to the myriad of impeachable offenses Trump has committed over 3 years, what the hell does Pelosi need to wait for??

So she moved to impeach over what you feel was an extortion, but the President of Ukraine said he wasn't extorted? That's a winning argument.

He said he wasn’t extorted right next to the extorter. Would you ask your friend if her husband is beating her in front of him and expect to get a valid answer?

Again you are making that up. Speculation at best.

Um, not making up that Zelensky was asked that question while sitting right next to Trump. And dependent on him for hundreds of millions of dollars.

For those in the cheap seats: the only fact is that the two men were sitting next to each other. Everything else, you are making up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If someone has leaked that the President is doing impeachable things, what's really important here is that we investigate the President, not protect him...

...riiight?

We can punish the leaker at our leisure thereafter. Or congratulate him on catching something impeachable, but also train him on the due process of whistle-blowing. Or whatever. But the POINT IS THAT WE CATCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO ENSURE THEY DO NOT RE-OCCUR.

If this was a Democratic President, some of you posters would have no problem understanding this

There is NOTHING impeachable here. That doesn't mean the Dems won't try.

Abuse of power is impeachable, as is the coverup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/biggest-bombshells-in-trump-whistleblower-complaint-cover-up.html

Well, since there was no abuse of power and no cover up, then there is no there there.

? You didn't even bother to read the article. How Trump-like.

-- White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by a July 25 phone call Trump had with Zelensky. There were discussions “with White House lawyers because of the likelihood,” in the minds of officials, “that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.” [abuse of power]

[coverup]
-- Senior White House officials intervened to “lock down” records of the call with Zelensky, which “underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

-- White House lawyers directed White House officials to remove the electronic transcript of the Zelensky call from the computer system where such transcripts normally are stored. That transcript then was loaded into a “separate electronic system” that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

When there is a reason to lock down the calls and store the transcript on a separate server, there is no coverup. And, there were reasons.
And, the first bullet is total hearsay. Third hand hearsay. Of course the whistleblower will not be held accountable for anything that is false in his complaint because he can claim that whatever was written there is what he heard.
This is why hearsay evidence is not admissible. Because, false information can be promoted without consequence.

Uh huh.

You think it's all hunky dory for Trump to pursue his personal interest at the expense of the country's interest.

I don't.

Personal interest? You mean Ukraine's role in influencing the 2016 election? You think that is HIS personal interest?

Uhhh...did Trump run for election in 2016 or not? Was he not personally vested in the outcome of the 2016 election or not? Is he running for 2020 or not? Does he not have a personal interest in the outcome of the 2020 election or not?

Anonymous wrote:Democrats: Nothing like a threat between friends:

"While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear — by his own account — that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden’s family.

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country’s “most important asset” and it would be viewed as election meddling and “disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations” to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them," Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine's leader."

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections

https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-discusses-recent-travel-to-germany-kosovo-serbia-and-ukraine

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where was the whistleblower today? Why did we get Adam Schiff? Why can't the whistleblower himself be asked questions?

Schiff knows who the whistleblower is and so does his staff. Many of the news articles cited by the whistleblower are the same news articles cited by Adam Schiff.

Seems Schiff is a leaker and should release his phone records.

The whistleblower complaint was written like a lawyer. One of his lawyers worked for Schumer and Clinton. Why did the whistleblower pick THAT lawyer?

One of his lawyers interned for Schumer for five months and for Clinton for five months, seemingly while he was in college. Long before he went to law school. If you have to work that hard to create an appearance of bias, you fail.

But he didn't intern for Rs now did he?

Because there were no R Senators where he lived.

You can intern for any senator you want.

More convienient to intern for New York Senators when you’re at Syracuse.

And, to intern with people you are ideologically on par with.

Honestly I don't understand this line of attack.

Whistleblower needs a lawyer. Do you expect him/her to hire a Trump supporter to be his lawyer? Who cares if his lawyer had contact with Schumer and Clinton years ago? What does that even suggest to you? To me it suggests the lawyer has a lot of connections and is probably sharp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone here tell me why Pelosi announced impeachment when the transcript had not been released?

Answer: She and Dems had the report of the whistleblower, which looked damaging. They didn't expect for Trump to release the actual transcript. When he did, it created an incongruence between what the whistleblower said he said, and what he actually said. So then, there had to be a re-interpretation of the transcript to fit the whistleblower's report. The most comment reinterpretation is that it was altered.

The buffoon in the OO admitted he extorted the president of Ukraine...with US resources as leverage. You add that to the myriad of impeachable offenses Trump has committed over 3 years, what the hell does Pelosi need to wait for??

So she moved to impeach over what you feel was an extortion, but the President of Ukraine said he wasn't extorted? That's a winning argument.

He said he wasn’t extorted right next to the extorter. Would you ask your friend if her husband is beating her in front of him and expect to get a valid answer?

Again you are making that up. Speculation at best.

Um, not making up that Zelensky was asked that question while sitting right next to Trump. And dependent on him for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If someone has leaked that the President is doing impeachable things, what's really important here is that we investigate the President, not protect him...

...riiight?

We can punish the leaker at our leisure thereafter. Or congratulate him on catching something impeachable, but also train him on the due process of whistle-blowing. Or whatever. But the POINT IS THAT WE CATCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO ENSURE THEY DO NOT RE-OCCUR.

If this was a Democratic President, some of you posters would have no problem understanding this

There is NOTHING impeachable here. That doesn't mean the Dems won't try.

Abuse of power is impeachable, as is the coverup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/biggest-bombshells-in-trump-whistleblower-complaint-cover-up.html

Well, since there was no abuse of power and no cover up, then there is no there there.

? You didn't even bother to read the article. How Trump-like.

-- White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by a July 25 phone call Trump had with Zelensky. There were discussions “with White House lawyers because of the likelihood,” in the minds of officials, “that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.” [abuse of power]

[coverup]
-- Senior White House officials intervened to “lock down” records of the call with Zelensky, which “underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

-- White House lawyers directed White House officials to remove the electronic transcript of the Zelensky call from the computer system where such transcripts normally are stored. That transcript then was loaded into a “separate electronic system” that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

When there is a reason to lock down the calls and store the transcript on a separate server, there is no coverup. And, there were reasons.
And, the first bullet is total hearsay. Third hand hearsay. Of course the whistleblower will not be held accountable for anything that is false in his complaint because he can claim that whatever was written there is what he heard.
This is why hearsay evidence is not admissible. Because, false information can be promoted without consequence.

Uh huh.

You think it's all hunky dory for Trump to pursue his personal interest at the expense of the country's interest.

I don't.

Personal interest? You mean Ukraine's role in influencing the 2016 election? You think that is HIS personal interest?

Uhhh...did Trump run for election in 2016 or not? Was he not personally vested in the outcome of the 2016 election or not? Is he running for 2020 or not? Does he not have a personal interest in the outcome of the 2020 election or not?