Whistleblower Doesn't Want to Testify

[Jerry Shugart]

House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually testify about it...Meanwhile, once the House impeaches Trump - which it most certainly will - the tables will turn in the Senate, which will hold a mandatory trial. Not only will the GOP-Senators controlling the proceedings be able to subpoena documents and other evidence, they'll be able to compel Ciaramella, the Bidens, Chalupa and any other witnesses they desire as we head into the 2020 US election.​

The trail in the Senate will expose the Democrat party's lies and cover-ups.

Read the full story here and the name of the Whistleblower:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...testify-lawyers-break-negotiations-house-amid

This is going to backfire on the Democrats big time and they will lose their control of the House in 2020. Also, it will not be long until the Inspector General's Report on the FISA Warrant comes out, and that report will also be devastating to the Democrats.

 

[The Barbarian]

Colin Lokey, also known as “Tyler Durden,” is breaking the first rule of Fight Club: You do not talk about Fight Club. ... Following an acrimonious departure this month, in which two-thirds of [ZeroHedge’s three writers] traded allegations of hypocrisy and mental instability, Lokey, 32, decided to unmask himself and his fellow Durdens. Lokey said the other two men are Daniel Ivandjiiski, 37, the Bulgarian-born former analyst long reputed to be behind the site, and Tim Backshall, 45, a well-known credit derivatives strategist.

The “allegations of hypocrisy” apparently stemmed from the fact that, although each of these men wrote for a website that purports to speak for voiceless individuals struggling under the domination of global capitalism, all three men’s Zero Hedge salaries were in fact pretty sweet, and maintaining the cash flow required chasing web traffic
https://gawker.com/blog-drama-anonymous-zero-hedge-writers-exposed-as-tra-1773817458

:chuckle:

They're merely following P.T. Barnum's advice.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Colin Lokey, also known as “Tyler Durden,” is breaking the first rule of Fight Club: You do not talk about Fight Club. ...

You attack the messenger in the hope that no one will notice that you ignored the message.

Your delusions are going to be shattered when the Senate Republicans question the so-called Whistleblower and exposes his part in the Democrat's efforts to get the Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 Presidental election.

Do you know how to spell C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N?

 

[The Barbarian]

You attack the messenger in the hope that no one will notice that you ignored the message.

You can find someone on the net to say just about anything. But if you hang out at those places, you're going to be continuously misled.

Your delusions are going to be shattered when the Senate Republicans question the so-called Whistleblower and exposes his part in the Democrat's efforts to get the Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 Presidental election.

Col. Vindman was briefly attacked by some of Trump's allies, but then it suddenly stopped. Can you guess why? The colonel is a decorated war veteran and a patriot. The optics of them defending a draft dodger and a grifter by attacking Vindman were so bad, they gave up.

Do you know how to spell C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N?

Q-U-I-D P-R-O Q-U-O

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The colonel is a decorated war veteran and a patriot. The optics of them defending a draft dodger and a grifter by attacking Vindman were so bad, they gave up.

Q-U-I-D P-R-O Q-U-O

The Colonel was unable to give any evidence at all that there was a "quid pro quo."

D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

 

[The Barbarian]

The Colonel was unable to give any evidence at all that there was a "quid pro quo."

You've been misled about that:

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified Tuesday that he believed President Trump blocked military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s family, according to CNN.

Vindman said he believed there was a quid pro quo in place by July 10 after a meeting between American and Ukrainian officials. During the meeting, Vindman said Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian officials they needed to ensure “specific investigations in order to secure the meeting” with Trump.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...rump-demanded-quid-pro-quo-from-ukrainian-aid

So it wasn't just Vindman who noticed.

 

[jgarden]

House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually testify about it...Meanwhile, once the House impeaches Trump - which it most certainly will - the tables will turn in the Senate, which will hold a mandatory trial. Not only will the GOP-Senators controlling the proceedings be able to subpoena documents and other evidence, they'll be able to compel Ciaramella, the Bidens, Chalupa and any other witnesses they desire as we head into the 2020 US election.​

The trail in the Senate will expose the Democrat party's lies and cover-ups.

Read the full story here and the name of the Whistleblower:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...testify-lawyers-break-negotiations-house-amid

This is going to backfire on the Democrats big time and they will lose their control of the House in 2020. Also, it will not be long until the Inspector General's Report on the FISA Warrant comes out, and that report will also be devastating to the Democrats.

Given that this President and the Republicans are refusing to provide documents and witnesses subpoenaed by the House, why would "Jerry Shugart" expect the Bidens, the Whistleblower, etc to comply with those issued by the Republican controlled Senate?

 

[The Barbarian]

Given that this President and the Republicans are refusing to provide documents and witnesses subpoenaed by the House, why would "Jerry Shugart" expect the Bidens, the Whistleblower, etc to comply with those issued by the Republican controlled Senate?

Because the Bidens and the people who turned in Trump are Americans who believe in America and the rule of law.

 

[Rusha]

Given that this President and the Republicans are refusing to provide documents and witnesses subpoenaed by the House, why would "Jerry Shugart" expect the Bidens, the Whistleblower, etc to comply with those issued by the Republican controlled Senate?

Good question. Regardless of the fact that we all know this is just another trump conspiracy theory, they are under no obligation to cooperate with the GOP.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You've been misled about that:
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified Tuesday that he believed President Trump blocked military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into former Vice President.

He can believe anything he wants but believing it and proving it are two different things. Where is the proof?

He cited absolutely nothing which he heard in the phone conversation which spoke of a "quid pro quo" because he didn't hear anything about that. If he would have he would have told us exactly what he heard that proves there was indeed a "quid pro quo." So his silence about that demonstrates that he has no actual proof.

Believing something is true is not the same thing as proving it is true.

But you progressives are just like the Soviets in that a person possesses no presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

That was demonstrated loud and clear in the Kavanaugh hearing. You people should be ashamed of yourselves because in your self-righteousness you convict others of things without any proof.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Given that this President and the Republicans are refusing to provide documents and witnesses subpoenaed by the House...

In your ignorance you know nothing about the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. No one can demand such documents and witnesses because they are just fishing for something so that they can disenfranchise 70 million voters who voted for Trump in 2016. Like many progressives you think that what is written in the Constitution can be trampled upon if it suits your purposes.

 

[annabenedetti]

In your ignorance you know nothing about the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. No one can demand such documents and witnesses because they are just fishing for something so that they can disenfranchise 70 million voters who voted for Trump in 2016. Like many progressives you think that what is written in the Constitution can be trampled upon if it suits your purposes.

If you're that concerned about separation of powers, you'll be concerned that Trump wanted the DOJ to go after his political enemies...

right? 'Cause you're that concerned?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled about that:
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified Tuesday that he believed President Trump blocked military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into former Vice President.

He can believe anything he wants but believing it and proving it are two different things. Where is the proof?

They've got the transcript of the call. Fox News reports:

Believing something is untrue is not the same thing as proving it is untrue. But in this case, even Fox has shown that Trump committed a crime, and clearly documented that the president is required to comply with the whistleblower law.

But you Trump loyalists are just like the Soviets in that a person possesses no presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

As the judge says, bribery or solicitation of a bribe is explicitly impeachable in the Constitution.

 

[The Barbarian]

In your ignorance you know nothing about the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. No one can demand such documents and witnesses because they are just fishing for something so that they can disenfranchise 70 million voters who voted for Trump in 2016. Like many progressives you think that what is written in the Constitution can be trampled upon if it suits your purposes.

The law says the whistleblower information will be sent to Congress. No exceptions.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

As the judge says, bribery or solicitation of a bribe is explicitly impeachable in the Constitution.

Please state the evidence that Trump bribed or solicited a bribe in the phone call.

Can you spell D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The law says the whistleblower information will be sent to Congress. No exceptions.

Yes, after the law concerning whistle blowers was changed so that the whistleblower no longer has to have to have first hand evidence.

Also, the whistleblower no longer wants to testify. If that doesn't tell you something about his motives then I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might be interested in buying.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If you're that concerned about separation of powers, you'll be concerned that Trump wanted the DOJ to go after his political enemies...

When the Mueller investigation could find no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia the Justice Department decided that it was of upmost importance to find out how the investigation began. They wanted to know why the Obama administration began to spy on those in the Trump campaign.

This was not the first time Obama's Justice Department had spied on their political enemies because that FBI "obtained a sealed search warrant to read a Fox News reporter’s personal emails from two days in 2010 after arguing there was probable cause he had violated espionage laws by soliciting classified information from a government official, court papers show."

That reporter who was spied on was James Rosen of FOX. "The case marks the first time the government has gone to court to portray news gathering as espionage, and Fox News officials and 1st Amendment advocates reacted angrily Monday after the secret warrant was reported by the Washington Post."

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2013-may-20-la-na-fbi-reporter-20130521-story.html

If the Democrats have their way they will take away the 1st amendment as well as the 2nd. The Democrats are the party of lawlessness!

Besides spying on Rosen the the Associated Press revealed that the Department of Justice had secretly spied on AP reporters, obtaining two months' worth of telephone records in what was most likely an attempt to crack down on internal leaks.

According to the AP, the Justice Department acquired records for more than 20 different phone lines associated with the news agency — including reporters' cell, office, and home lines — that could affect more than 100 staffers. Calling the move a "massive and unprecedented intrusion," AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt demanded that the DOJ explain why it had gone after the records.

https://theweek.com/articles/464430/why-did-obama-administration-spy-associated-press

Obama cared nothing about spying on those in the free press because he was intent on attacking any reporter who told the truth about him.

If Hillary would have been elected then she would follow Obama's lead and spy on anyone who reported anything bad about her.

And speaking of Obama's Justice Department, only a fool cannot know why Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch met on the airport tarmac in Phoenix at the time when the Justice Department was investigating crooked Hillary. It wasn't long after that meeting that the charges against Hillary were dropped. No doubt Loretta Lynch was promised a seat on the Supreme Court if she would play ball.

But of course you are ignorant of these facts because you supported Hillary in the 2016 election. In fact, the Democrats depend on ignorant people like you for votes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, after the law concerning whistle blowers was changed so that the whistleblower no longer has to have to have first hand evidence.

As you now realize, Lt. Col. Vidman was listening to the call. Can't get more first-hand than that.

Also, the whistleblower no longer wants to testify.

He already has.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

As you now realize, Lt. Col. Vidman was listening to the call. Can't get more first-hand than that.

You are so delusional that you cannot even understand the simple fact that Vidman provided zero evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

If there was a quid pro quo then no doubt Vidman would have reported it. But he never gave any proof of an imagined quid pro quo.

So his testimony proved nothing.

 

[The Barbarian]

When the Mueller investigation could find no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia

Actually, Mueller wrote: "We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability." Pretty much what Trump's Justice Department found for Clinton. However, Mueller also documented repeated attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation, each of which is a felony.

the Justice Department decided that it was of upmost importance to find out how the investigation began.

That's documented, too. A Trump staffer got a little tipsy and let slip that the Trump campaign knew that the Russians were gathering dirt on Clinton. The Australian diplomat passed it on to the Justice Department.