Trump changes his story on Ukraine again

a reply to: MachineMan

No it involves Ukraine, Russia and trump. And its over.

a reply to: xuenchen

Ha ha ha Its still not what you think it is. This is hilarious. Really.
Its over for him. Finally.
They are already playing taps.

a reply to: xuenchen

Only another criminal would think so.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: blueman12

They have oil and don't go around saying they want to kill us.

TheRedneck

Wasn’t 9/11 just a few weeks ago?

Someone must’ve forgotten.

“Never forget”. 🙄

a reply to: shooterbrody

Did he make a statement?

I saw a letter he wrote to the whistleblowers lawyers being pretty accommodating and polite and saying his desire is to stay within the laws and he is doing all he can to get the information out. And to please be patient.
What else has he said?

a reply to: conspiracy nut

We're not suppose to notice while he tries different stories on to see which one he wants to go with.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What is too bad is that it was never his job to determine if this complaint met the criteria for Urgent Concern in the first place. His job was simple. Forward the complaint to congress. Period. No trying to determine if it meets any criteria simply to forward it to congress for them to determine that.
He was completely out of line in doing this to start with.

a reply to: DJMSN

It is someone in the intelligence community. He doesn't fit the bill.

a reply to: TheRedneck

In Washington it is never about the "facts" only the seriousness of the charge.

Once again this whole thing is Silly. Another Nothingburger with a side of Coke Zero.

We have a third hand account from a "whistleblower", who never actually heard the conversation in question.

Whisleblower that had "political bias" and possible connections with a "rival candidate" (guess who)

DNI, who after looking at the complaint, said it did not meet the legal definition of "urgent concern"

Transcripts coming out today hopefully, that most likely will not show anything.

Politicians in the Ukraine that say there was no pressure, no quid pro quo.

A president that had a legitimate request to look into corruption which involved a US citizen.

Not enough votes in the House to actually impeach.

Meanwhile on the other side:

We have a VP that threatened to withhold $1 billion, if the investigator who was looking into corruption of a company that his son was working for, was not fired within 6 hours. (and him bragging about it on video to boot!)

VP son making $50k a month, in a business he knew nothing about.

Possible money laundering to said son to the tune of $3 million.

Looking more possible that the VP himself may have gotten $3-4 million in the same scheme.

Democrats loosing their minds, starting impeachment proceedings, with no House vote. (putting the cart before the horse)

Pelosi, declaring Trump guilty: "betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and the betrayal of the integrity of our elections."

I could go on and on... Who are the real criminals here. People should be investigated for sure. If it all falls through, and it will, they should all be rounded up and charged with attempted coup, as that is what it is.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Did he make a statement?

I saw a letter he wrote to the whistleblowers lawyers being pretty accommodating and polite and saying his desire is to stay within the laws and he is doing all he can to get the information out. And to please be patient.
What else has he said?

Yes the dni made a statement
He will also testify Thursday

The "largely symbolic" gesture by Pelosi ( nprs words) has no officisl capacity.

Lol
Pelosi played the dem base as they dont know the rules.

It's time for Trump to take the gloves off.

originally posted by: Echo007
It's time for Trump to take the gloves off.

why
the dems are destroying themselves
no need to pile on

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wait, let me get this straight...

It has been acknowledged that the whistleblower was not even in on the call... he received his info second hand. And you claim his second-hand hearsay evidence is more important than the actual transcript of the call?

Wow... I think I'm speechless...

TheRedneck

I think you are allowing the media to manipulate your thought process. There is a very small group of people on the presidential calls live. However, there is a larger, but still small group, that reads the transcripts. The whistleblower is most likely someone who has read the transcripts.

This way the media is correct when they say he received the knowledge "second-hand".

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: blueman12

They have oil and don't go around saying they want to kill us.

TheRedneck

They just kill our journalists and cut them up with a bone saw.

a reply to: Gorgonite

There is a very small group of people on the presidential calls live. However, there is a larger, but still small group, that reads the transcripts.

none of which has any power over diplomacy or setting foreign policy
those powers belong to the potus only
nice try tho

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sillyolme
As I understand it, it must be released, at least to Congress. I'm sure it will be, so Congress can go chasing wild geeses again instead of legislating.

I want to see it too. I especially want to see the name at the bottom so we'll all know who is leaking international phone calls with foreign leaders to get the bad orange guy. If that's not included, I won't consider it a full release.

You good with that?

No and you shouldn't be either. The whistleblower laws exist for a reason. They exist so they are protected when they report wrongdoing. If the guy reported on Trump and the accusations turn out to be nothing, then sure, release his name because he accused a sitting president of a faked crime. However, if the accusations are legitimate, then no, I don't see the need to break the whistleblower law.

What is it you really want? A recording from a CNN wiretap that documents every syllable uttered for the last three years, plus a transcrIpt complete with notes about alternate definitions for each one?

You still wouldn't be satisfied, and you know it.

You do realize that the Trump admin has already falsified transcripts? As much as the Trump admin lies, I don't think anyone is going to take anything from them on faith. Just look at this event only. Trump has lied specifically about this event a half dozen times.

That's the job of the IG. As I understand it, the IG is the one delaying release.

TheRedneck

The IG wanted to release it. However, the AG (Barr) stepped in and blocked the release.

Again, if the Trump admin AG will go to these lengths to protect Trump, why should I trust them?

Bottom line, The Trump admin honestly believes they are above the law. They are not. After the Dems failed to act when the Mueller report outlined clear crimes, Trump obviously felt like he was invincible. However, this is not a monarchy or dictatorship, this is a republic in which even the president is accountable for his actions. The problem is they really don't think they are beholden to any laws. Here is Rudy saying even if Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden, he didn't do anything wrong.

Asked about the Post report, Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN: “If what is reported is true, it doesn’t make any difference.”

www.reuters.com...

a reply to: Sillyolme

According to you but according to the IG the whistleblower is not someone in the Intel community and the IG is reporting the individual has a strong bias against the Trump admin in favor of another candidate. The whistleblower has lawyered up with lawyers that have direct ties to the Clinton's. That is telling alone as to where the complaint is coming from.

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Sillyolme

According to you but according to the IG the whistleblower is not someone in the Intel community and the IG is reporting the individual has a strong bias against the Trump admin in favor of another candidate. The whistleblower has lawyered up with lawyers that have direct ties to the Clinton's. That is telling alone as to where the complaint is coming from.

I'm sorry, but this really doesn't hold water. Why? Because the IG originally found that the complaint was both "credible" and "urgent". He forwarded on to the acting DNI, which is what the law requires him to do if he finds the complaint "credible" and "urgent". This was on August 26th.

The date for the acting DNI to send the complaint over was on September 2. The IG reached out to Adam Schiff on September 9th to let him know that there was a complaint being withheld from them that was of "urgent concern".

Then yesterday, the IG suddenly says the whistleblower was partisan. Sorry that doesn't mesh with his previous actions. It really seems like an attempt at gaslighting wouldn't you say?

Also, why do you believe the side who has lied about this specific issue over a half dozen times? Trump originally claimed this was all fake. Then he said well the call took place but it was just a congratulatory call. Then he said well there was no pressure. Then he said yeah I pressured them, so what. Even on releasing the money he first stated "Oh we released it". Then when it turned out that hadn't happened it is because of an "interagency process". Then it was because Ukraine is too corrupt to get the money. Then it was because he wanted to make sure France and Germany were paying their fir share (Which they are $15 billlion).

So my question to you is why do you believe the side that has lied over and over about this issue?

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: DJMSN

According to you but according to the IG the whistleblower is not someone in the Intel community

False.

The whistleblower works in the US intelligence community (which includes the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and a whole bunch of other agencies). Per the Post, he or she “once worked on the staff of the White House National Security Council, which frequently borrows intelligence community personnel.”

www.vox.com...