Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did you see Hannity last night? Did you see his knuckles?

I don’t watch. Bulimia knuckles?

Bloody. He must have punched a wall right before going on camera.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This “error” assumes that we got the entire contents of the call. It wasn’t a transcript. And if you speak all of the words in what we got, it takes 11 minutes. The call was reported to be more than twice as long is that. Senator Feinstein has already demanded the entire call, so I guess we’ll see.

In other words, you’re going to speculate to dispel fact. LOL

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did you see Hannity last night? Did you see his knuckles?

Anonymous wrote:

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

This “error” assumes that we got the entire contents of the call. It wasn’t a transcript. And if you speak all of the words in what we got, it takes 11 minutes. The call was reported to be more than twice as long is that. Senator Feinstein has already demanded the entire call, so I guess we’ll see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don't like about the whistleblower complaint is that it's all hearsay.

But it sounds like the people that the whistleblower heard from were interviewed so hopefully there is a LOT of corroboration.

I would think that the actual transcript can and will be retrieved from the secret server.

The thing is, Giuliani and Trump have already admitted to the contours of the issue, even of the whistleblower complaint is ALL heresay and has details wrong.

Facts: Trump used Congressionally authorized funds as leverage to conduct personal campaign gains. That is illegal on two fronts. Giulianii has been serving as an unpaid government envoy to conduct said policy. That is 2 or 3 counts of illegality. Giuliani is implicating the Pompeo State Department. Mulvaney illegally withheld the funds; Pence met with the Ukrainian president to reaffirm the con and Barr has been systemic in the cover-up.

All of this is either admitted to or prima facia.

That is not a fact at all. That is what the left is pushing. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. And, even the Ukrainian president denied it.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don't like about the whistleblower complaint is that it's all hearsay.

But it sounds like the people that the whistleblower heard from were interviewed so hopefully there is a LOT of corroboration.

I would think that the actual transcript can and will be retrieved from the secret server.

The thing is, Giuliani and Trump have already admitted to the contours of the issue, even of the whistleblower complaint is ALL heresay and has details wrong.

Facts: Trump used Congressionally authorized funds as leverage to conduct personal campaign gains. That is illegal on two fronts. Giulianii has been serving as an unpaid government envoy to conduct said policy. That is 2 or 3 counts of illegality. Giuliani is implicating the Pompeo State Department. Mulvaney illegally withheld the funds; Pence met with the Ukrainian president to reaffirm the con and Barr has been systemic in the cover-up.

All of this is either admitted to or prima facia.

That is not a fact at all. That is what the left is pushing. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. And, even the Ukrainian president denied it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Romney speaking up against Trump? Seems he's waist deep in with Biden:

“My reaction was the same as (the one) I had a few days ago, which is — this remains deeply troubling,” Romney said during an interview at The Atlantic Festival on Wednesday. “We’ll see where it leads, but the first reaction is troubling.” [CNN]

However, what dear ol’ Mittens is not telling you, is that he has very close ties to Hunter Biden’s company – the one where he made $50 thousand per month – and is at the center of this entire Biden Ukraine scandal. As it turns out, Mitt’s national security advisor for his failed 2012 campaign sits on the board of directors for “Burisma.”

https://www.waynedupree.com/mitt-romney-hunter-biden-burisma/

Also, Romney is a Never Trumper. But I guess Occam's razor is for other people...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Republican and the list of all of Trump’s misdeeds from lying, misinformation, operating a bogus university, operating a bogus charity, steering govt business to his personal interests, having his kids involved in running the govt, his love and adoration for ruthless and murderous dictators, his obvious complicity with Putin, his racist comments, his hiding of his taxes, and now this. Isn’t all the enough to demonstrate to any human being of normal intelligence that something isn’t right with this guy? And yet they continue to defend his actions as purely innocent and in furtherance of him being the best President ever.

Most people agree with you. The rest watch Fox News, and since Fox News is starting to have doubts about Trump, I think they will come round too.

What makes you say that?

NP here - this is anecdotal, but my folks who have been Fox News fans/Hannity fans/used to listen to Rush Limbaugh radio show recently told me they aren't tuning into Fox anymore since the network's not as conservative as it used to be. They now watch One America News Network.

God, I first heard of that on a visit to my brother's/ His wife (who is a lunatic hoarder) watches that network, on the basis of which she claims 400,000 illegals crossing the border daily. Which would mean the US population doubled in the last 2 years and we didn't even notice it. My brother is a yokel farmer but a solid Democrat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff had taken the time to look at the criteria for complaints, they would understand why this was not passed on.
This complaint should not have ever made it to Congress based on these criteria.

To me, that is evidence the criteria need to be a loosened a bit. One cannot have a corrupt President protected by his immediate witnesses who because of a stupid these rules escapes from all consequences of his corruption.

Nah, PP has it wrong. The report is a credible urgent concern. We can all read it and see why.

A third hand account containing information that is incorrect that doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the guidelines. Nope. Not credible. Not urgent.

Anonymous wrote:I think any other president would be resigning right about now. There’s no path forward for him. After all we have learned, I can’t have imagine him ever being able to go back to what he was doing before. Even if he’s not removed from office, it is over for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff had taken the time to look at the criteria for complaints, they would understand why this was not passed on.
This complaint should not have ever made it to Congress based on these criteria.

To me, that is evidence the criteria need to be a loosened a bit. One cannot have a corrupt President protected by his immediate witnesses who because of a stupid these rules escapes from all consequences of his corruption.

Nah, PP has it wrong. The report is a credible urgent concern. We can all read it and see why.

Also, the whistleblower did make first-hand assertions, about the MEMCON, which they had seen and read personally. I get that such transcripts aren't always verbatim, but claiming that this is all hearsay is a bet like saying you can't use an email as evidence unless you watched the sender press the keys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff had taken the time to look at the criteria for complaints, they would understand why this was not passed on.
This complaint should not have ever made it to Congress based on these criteria.

To me, that is evidence the criteria need to be a loosened a bit. One cannot have a corrupt President protected by his immediate witnesses who because of a stupid these rules escapes from all consequences of his corruption.

Nah, PP has it wrong. The report is a credible urgent concern. We can all read it and see why.

A third hand account containing information that is incorrect that doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the guidelines. Nope. Not credible. Not urgent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff had taken the time to look at the criteria for complaints, they would understand why this was not passed on.
This complaint should not have ever made it to Congress based on these criteria.

To me, that is evidence the criteria need to be a loosened a bit. One cannot have a corrupt President protected by his immediate witnesses who because of a stupid these rules escapes from all consequences of his corruption.

Nah, PP has it wrong. The report is a credible urgent concern. We can all read it and see why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff had taken the time to look at the criteria for complaints, they would understand why this was not passed on.
This complaint should not have ever made it to Congress based on these criteria.

To me, that is evidence the criteria need to be a loosened a bit. One cannot have a corrupt President protected by his immediate witnesses who because of a stupid these rules escapes from all consequences of his corruption.

Nah, PP has it wrong. The report is a credible urgent concern. We can all read it and see why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff had taken the time to look at the criteria for complaints, they would understand why this was not passed on.
This complaint should not have ever made it to Congress based on these criteria.