New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The repubicans Star witness...

Well yes, if as it appears, that Eric Ciaramella conspired and colluded with Adam Schitt to orchestrate claims about the president and to use those claims to have the president removed from office, that would be sedition.
Right-wingers need to find a way to say the Whistleblower complaint was false/incorrect. Saying it was "orchestrated" doesn't do that. There is nothing wrong with "orchestrating" anything.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Well yes, if as it appears, that Eric Ciaramella conspired and colluded with Adam Schitt to orchestrate claims about the president and to use those claims to have the president removed from office, that would be sedition.

Obviously, your babbling about Linda Tripp shows you know you're losing the argument.
Well, obviously your babbling about Ciaramella conspiring with anyone is proof you know you are losing. You don't even know if it is Ciaramella who talked to congress about the phone call. Add to that the fact that Trump released text of a phone call that absolutely shows that if Ukraine wanted weapons they'd need to do Trump a favor.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I'm not going to do all you clowns digging for you. If you can't Google it then get the fuk off the internet.
I have googled it and linked to it. There is no law preventing anyone other than the IG from releasing the name. If there is retribution against the whistleblower then the person who released the name may be liable for creating a hostile work environment.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Conspiring with fellow DemocRATS to overthrow the presidency is sedition. And the leaker's attorney tweeted "the coup begins" in early 2017. So obviously, there has been a coordinated attempt at sedition.
There has been no attempt at a violent overthrow of the government (coup), nor has their been any suggestion that the population rise up in rebellion (sedition).
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I did. And it utterly fails to identify the actual law, and link to it, and paste the relevant text, which states that a whistleblowers identity is protected under the law.
I wasn't attempting to do that and haven't said there is such a law. The law does protect the identity from being released by the IG and I posted a link to that law.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Vindman's testimony makes it clear that the details released is not the full conversation, as it is noted on the released summary itself.



It violates the MLAT we have in place with Ukraine, and the independence rules of both the Ukrainian Prosecutor's office and the DOJ in their activities.



But that is not true.

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense

The lack of success is not what determines if something is an illegal act.
All you have to do is try.





Not really

Under the conditions of the foreign military sale, the Trump administration stipulates that the Javelins must be stored in western Ukraine—hundreds of miles from the battlefield.

“I see these more as symbolic weapons than anything else,” said Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at Rand Corp. Experts say the conditions of the sale render them useless in the event of a sustained low-level assault—the kind of attack Ukraine is most likely to face from Russia
.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/far-from-the-front-lines-javelin-missiles-go-unused-in-ukraine/



He took and oath to defend the Constitution, not Trump. You guys seem to get the two mixed up.



Not according to Steve Bannon's sworn testimony.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-stone/bannon-delivers-damaging-testimony-in-trial-of-longtime-trump-adviser-stone-idUSKBN1XI290
So you accept the fact that Trump did more for Ukraine than Obama did. Good, now we're making headway. Now, with respect to Vindman - the Constitution gives the POTUS the pwer to conduct foreign policy. I can see no logic that suggests there is anything in there that gives a military officer the right to try and undermine the POTUS in that endeavor. And, in fact, there's a case to be made under the UCMJ that what he is doing is treasonous. And, wrt Steve Bannon - nothing he has put forth substantiates the claim that Wikileaks got the emails from Russia, or that Stone had access to anything that wasn't already in the public domain. Stone was convicted for lying to Congress (which is an outrage considering that they can and do lie to the American people every time they open their freaking mouths), not for anything even remotely related to "Russia" (yet I see reuters took it upon themselves to put Russia in the key words in their link. That's the very definition of "fake news).
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
Right-wingers need to find a way to say the Whistleblower complaint was false/incorrect. Saying it was "orchestrated" doesn't do that. There is nothing wrong with "orchestrating" anything.
I'm fine with it being correct. From what I know, I don't see anything illegal. That's precisely why Ciaramella needs to be interrogated. Sedition is a serious matter.
 

Spamature

President
So you accept the fact that Trump did more for Ukraine than Obama did. Good, now we're making headway. Now, with respect to Vindman - the Constitution gives the POTUS the pwer to conduct foreign policy. I can see no logic that suggests there is anything in there that gives a military officer the right to try and undermine the POTUS in that endeavor. And, in fact, there's a case to be made under the UCMJ that what he is doing is treasonous. And, wrt Steve Bannon - nothing he has put forth substantiates the claim that Wikileaks got the emails from Russia, or that Stone had access to anything that wasn't already in the public domain. Stone was convicted for lying to Congress (which is an outrage considering that they can and do lie to the American people every time they open their freaking mouths), not for anything even remotely related to "Russia" (yet I see reuters took it upon themselves to put Russia in the key words in their link. That's the very definition of "fake news).
First of all Trump first action after getting the nomination was to take this particular plank out of the GOP platform, but that looks bad. So he arms them with these weapons but they must be stored in Western Ukraine. Meaning that they would actually be useless against an actual tank assault from Russia in Eastern Ukraine which is where that kind of attack would most likely take place.

Telling the truth under oath before congress when called to testify is not undermining an endeavor of the POTUS nor is trying to correct an inaccurate record of a conversation he witnessed.

Even if there was an intermediary between Russian military intelligence and Assange. They were still document stolen by Russian military intelligence from a US political party and as far as the Trump campaign is concerned they believe Stone to be their access point to Assange and Wikileaks.

He lied to congress during an investigation into Russia's attack on the US and his involvement in that overall attack.

Just because you don't like the news does not mean its fake.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
First of all Trump first action after getting the nomination was to take this particular plank out of the GOP platform, but that looks bad. So he arms them with these weapons but they must be stored in Western Ukraine. Meaning that they would actually be useless against an actual tank assault from Russia in Eastern Ukraine which is where that kind of attack would most likely take place.

Telling the truth under oath before congress when called to testify is not undermining an endeavor of the POTUS nor is trying to correct an inaccurate record of a conversation he witnessed.

Even if there was an intermediary between Russian military intelligence and Assange. They were still document stolen by Russian military intelligence from a US political party and as far as the Trump campaign is concerned they believe Stone to be their access point to Assange and Wikileaks.

He lied to congress during an investigation into Russia's attack on the US and his involvement in that overall attack.

Just because you don't like the news does not mean its fake.
LOL! And you think the Trump supporters are chasing conspiracy theories??? There is no evidence that Russia was the source of the Wikileaks emails. The "plank" never was "in" the GOP platform - it was proposed, and rejected. Because Trump was hoping for better relations with the Russians. I was too. There was no "Russian attack on the US." That's a conspiracy theory. Congress' "investigation into Russia's attack on the US" was a witch hunt. Like the "investigation" into Iraqi WMDs...
 
Top