Quin_Dub wrote: » - What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower?
notobtuse wrote: » why would Trump fire him and risk Bolton exposing Trump?
Boggles wrote: » We have and not even the GOP or Team Trump accept that horsé**** anymore.He did it but it's grand is this weeks defense. Is your twitter feed not updating or something?
kilns wrote: » Mulvaney "So those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." Now, there was a report —" Q: "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?" Mulvaney: "The look back to what happened in 2016 —" Q: "The investigation into Democrats." Mulvaney: "— certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate." Reporters press Mulvaney to clarify if aid hinged on the DNC investigation Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well." Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."
Outlaw Pete wrote: » That's your response? I can only take it from that reply that you have no interest in discussing the evidence, you're focusing on soundbytes and opinions and, as Schiff has been finding out, they don't cut it. You suggested Mulvaney had admitted on live TV that there was a QPQ with regards to an investigation into Biden and so back it up. Quote something he said that would lend one to believing that the aid was being held until Ukraine announced that investigation.
duploelabs wrote: » So you're saying that Bolton should testify then as he can back it up
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I think Bolton should testify, I think he should do whatever he wants to do and so should Trump.
Quin_Dub wrote: » OK - So we still come back to the core question - What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower? What's the purpose of that? As I said , if the claims were totally spurious or politically motivated the IG would not have sent the information forward to further review. The Whistle blower basically said "I'm concerned with what I heard on the call and I think it needs investigation" - The IG agreed. We know they didn't make anything up as their report matches the "transcript" released by Trump. The only thing up for discussion is whether or not it was OK for Trump to say/ask what he did. The actual facts of the matter are not being argued by either side. Once the report got past the IG then that is the end of the Whistle blowers involvement. How or why the report was made no longer matters. So again - What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower or calling them as a witness?
“If the whistleblower, as is alleged in some public reports, actually did work for then-Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues, exactly what was his role? What was his involvement when issues were raised — we know from testimony that questions were raised — about the potential conflict of interest that the vice president then had when his son was sitting on the board of Burisma,” Philbin asked. “Was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that?” … “Did he have some reason to want to put the deep-six on any question raising any issue about what went on with the Bidens and Burisma and firing Shokin and withholding a billion dollars in loan guarantees and enforcing a very explicit quid pro quo — you won’t get this billion dollars until you fire him?” Philbin asked, pointedly. “We don’t know, and because Manager Schiff was guiding this whole process — because he was chairman in charge of directing the inquiry and directing it away from any of those questions — that creates a real due process defect in the record,” the president’s lawyer declared.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Well there's a Cathy Newman reply. No, I didn't say that in my post but if you're asking me do I think Bolton should testify, I think he should do whatever he wants to do and so should Trump. Had the democrats not done everything they could to make things difficult for Trump and the Republicans during the congressional hearings, then I might look on Trump's actions a little harsher, but they did and so I won't. Personally though, I am interesting seeing any witnesses which either side would like to call.
Boggles wrote: » Mick said democrats.
He can do anything he likes as long as he thinks it's okay to do it. Monarch of America.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » That's just an opinion.
"If Trump remains in office, what signal does that send to countries that want to interfere in our future elections"
Outlaw Pete wrote: » On the call to Zelensky Trump called out the Ukraine about their past corruption, and asked him to look into how they may have attempted to interfere in the 2016 US election, and to get to the bottom of it for him .. and so quite clearly the message is that the US will not stand for it.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » No, the reporters did and he kept reverting them back on topic, making it clear that he was at no stage referring to an investigation into the Bidens. He cited an ongoing investigation into 2016 (the John Durham one) but that was it. That's just an opinion. I'm asking for evidence of what is alleged in the main article of impeachment. Does anyone have any?
notobtuse wrote: » Curiouser and curiouser! The fired Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, has filed a federal complaint against Joe Biden, charging he 'abused his power.'https://www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/ On Friday the Senate shouldn't acquit Trump, they should dismiss all charges!
notobtuse wrote: » OK Boomers
Matt Barrett wrote: » This the lad Rudy tried to get a US visa for? The same one the EU wanted fired? Seems legit
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Really?
notobtuse wrote: » Wouldn’t that be the next thing the self absorbed, hand crafted mocha latte sipping, technology obsessed, phone staring, ridiculously tattooed, layabouts whose greatest desire is to spend the rest of their lives smoking medical marijuana in their parents’ basements say as they see their arguments slip away?
notobtuse wrote: » In case you missed it he's the lad at the center of Joe Biden's illegal quid pro quo.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Excellent description, but no, hopefully not. Hopefully they'll get out of their bunkers to campaign and vote (Democrat obviously).
Boggles wrote: » Trump asked him to look into a debunked conspiracy theory as well as the Bidens.
He also called the corrupt prosecutor "very good" on the call.
The prosecutor wasn't looking into Burisma, the investigation was dormant.
Either way the investigation timeline was before Hunter Biden joined the company.
There is absolutely no evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong when he was with Burisma.
Biden announced he was running for the Presidency, the poll number matchups showed he beat Trump, Trump tries to blackmail a foreign country to announce a bogus investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Sigh. The server issue could be said to be debunked, but that is not the totality of how Ukrainians interfered in 2016, how many times does this have to be said?
We have no information that indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election
Boggles wrote: » I suppose until yourself and Trump accept you are peddling a debunked conspiracy theory thought to have been started by the Russians.
Matt Barrett wrote: » I feel the only evidence you'll accept is an admission from Trump. Gangsters don't generally do that.
