Whistleblower Overheard Talking Trump Impeachment Two Weeks After Inauguration

[llovejim]

Back On Topic:

You won’t be surprised to hear that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who had listened to the call, was their “mutual ally.” According to former NSC co-workers and congressional sources, Vindman leaked information about the call to Ciaramella the next day.

Vindman had filled Ciaramella’s previous position at the NSC, but “the two officials continued to collaborate through interagency meetings.”

Vindman leaked what he’d heard to Ciaramella by phone that afternoon, the sources said. In their conversation, which lasted a few minutes, he described Trump’s call as “crazy,” and speculated he had “committed a criminal act.” Neither reviewed the transcript of the call before the White House released it months later.

NSC co-workers said that Vindman, like Ciaramella, openly expressed his disdain for Trump whose foreign policy was often at odds with the recommendations of “the interagency” — a network of agency working groups comprised of intelligence bureaucrats, experts and diplomats who regularly meet to craft and coordinate policy positions inside the federal government.

Vindman’s commanding officer, Army Lt. Col. Jim Hickman, complained that Vindman, then a major, “was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly and really talked up Obama and globalism to the point of [It being] uncomfortable.”

“Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012,” Hickman, now retired, asserted. “Do not let the uniform fool you. He is a political activist in uniform.”

bullshit. and mulvaney is a dedicated repub and he admits the quid pro quo. and so is sondland. and so is bolton who called this bullshit extortion plot a drug deal.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

bullshit. and mulvaney is a dedicated repub and he admits the quid pro quo. and so is sondland. and so is bolton who called this bullshit extortion plot a drug deal.

So what did Sondland actually say?

There was no quid pro quo.

Roll the tapes.

Sondland confirms POTUS said no quid pro quo

https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1220069960258551809?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1220069960258551809&ref_url=https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/01/22/rep-mark-meadows-this-question-should-be-asked-each-time-house-democrats-reference-gordon-sondland/

 

[Nutty Cortez]

bullshit. and mulvaney is a dedicated repub and he admits the quid pro quo. and so is sondland. and so is bolton who called this bullshit extortion plot a drug deal.

Sondland ?

Why are you using the testimony of someone who admitted under oath he had zero evidence, other than his own “presumption?”

 

[Nutty Cortez]

BULLSHIT. you are just trying to be dense, i suppose. nobody can be this stupid on purpose. good god. you act like the only way you can find someone of being guilty of bribery is if you catch Trump giving Zelensky a check for 391 million dollars in a back-street alley at midnight and Zelensky hands Trump at the same time A promissory note to publicly announce the investigation into the Bidens from 3 years ago. good god. no bribery case is that cut and dried. you have to hear all the evidence you can, and most of it will not be physical or videotaped or recorded or texted!! there has to be overheard conversations connected to actual events- in this case, the withheld military aid and trump's phone call asking for the favor!! any bribery case is hardly ever any more clear cut than this...

Yes, Posting the facts and law is dense. LOL

Edited

 

[middleview]

I guess you think I have amnesia.

During the House hearings, the witnesses the DEMOCRATS called all testified that the transcript accurately portrays the phone conversation they were told about.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/witnesses-grade-trump-zelensky-call-transcript-11572696000

It's a SHAM, that's why the Democrats are full of excuses why people Ciaramella and neither Biden nor Schiff should need testify. Bogus!

This is not a trial of Biden, Schiff nor Ciaramella. Nothing they have to say changes the facts.

1. Trump, from long before the phone call, was working towards getting Ukraine to announce an investigation to smear Biden. He wanted foreign help in the 2020 election.

What do Biden or Schiff have to say that would make it acceptable?

2. Trump ordered government employees to ignore congressional subpeonas. Shoul Clinton have done that? How about Obama? Based on Trump logic, Hillary could have refused to testfy in any of the Benghazi hearings.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Sondland ?

Why are you using the testimony of someone who admitted under oath he had zero evidence, other than his own “presumption?”

because Sondland was lying when he said he had no direct evidence other than his presumption.

Right jim??

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

You can't make this kind of stuff up, boys and girls.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/22/whistleblower-overheard-talking-trump-impeachment-two-weeks-after-inauguration/

Whistleblower Overheard Talking Trump Impeachment Two Weeks After Inauguration
“Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella,” the CIA analyst who everybody knows is the whistleblower, “was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
“Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new ‘America First’ foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.”

Doesn’t that tell you a lot? Here comes Trump, America first, and the Obama people don’t like that, America first is a problem, it’s such a problem we gotta get rid of Trump. This is two weeks after inauguration.

“’Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,’ said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation. ‘They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda,’ the former official added. ‘They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.’ Misko left the White House last summer –”

If witnesses are to be called (which is idiotic because there are no witnesses, since no crime has been committed) the list should start with this criminal. Put him on the stand, put him under oath and make him admit the truth.

Trumplandia - where the identity of the whistleblower is unknown, but the residents yap about “what the whistleblower said.”

;-)

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Trumplandia - where the identity of the whistleblower is unknown, but the residents yap about “what the whistleblower said.”

;-)

so, what the whistelblower said is unimportant? Ok. There goes your whole case. BYE BYE, nice impeachment.

 

[Dino]

This is not a trial of Biden, Schiff nor Ciaramella. Nothing they have to say changes the facts.

1. Trump, from long before the phone call, was working towards getting Ukraine to announce an investigation to smear Biden. He wanted foreign help in the 2020 election.

What do Biden or Schiff have to say that would make it acceptable?

2. Trump ordered government employees to ignore congressional subpeonas. Shoul Clinton have done that? How about Obama? Based on Trump logic, Hillary could have refused to testfy in any of the Benghazi hearings.

Why did Trump want an investigation? To combat which sources of Ukrainian corruption? Is there some corruption the Bidens were involved in or not? If it had anything to do with Burisma then Hunter Biden would be able to explain how there was no such concerns.
Why was a prosecutor fired there when there were open investigations of Burisma?
Joe Biden used force of threat to have the prosecutor fired, an act he has boasted about. Let’s have him answer questions as to how his actions do not merit an abuse of power charge while he feels Trump’s do.

If Trump ordered people to ignore subpoenas or deny requests to testify, the House Dems had further judicial action to compel them to listen. Why ignore the court process to get them to testify? Why the hot rush to impeach rather than use a common approach to question privilege?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

So what did Sondland actually say?

There was no quid pro quo.

Roll the tapes.

Sondland confirms POTUS said no quid pro quo

https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1220069960258551809?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1220069960258551809&ref_url=https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/01/22/rep-mark-meadows-this-question-should-be-asked-each-time-house-democrats-reference-gordon-sondland/

Wingers sure do love their lies.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Why did Trump want an investigation? To combat which sources of Ukrainian corruption? Is there some corruption the Bidens were involved in or not? If it had anything to do with Burisma then Hunter Biden would be able to explain how there was no such concerns.
Why was a prosecutor fired there when there were open investigations of Burisma?
Joe Biden used force of threat to have the prosecutor fired, an act he has boasted about. Let’s have him answer questions as to how his actions do not merit an abuse of power charge while he feels Trump’s do.

If Trump ordered people to ignore subpoenas or deny requests to testify, the House Dems had further judicial action to compel them to listen. Why ignore the court process to get them to testify? Why the hot rush to impeach rather than use a common approach to question privilege?

“If” Trump ordered his people to defy the subpoenas?

Yer a hoot.

;-)

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

so, what the whistelblower said is unimportant? Ok. There goes your whole case. BYE BYE, nice impeachment.

Pure idiocy. The whistleblower is not even among the 17 House witnesses whose testimony damns Trump.

 

[Dawg]

Whistleblower arrested

Jabba the Hutt

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/01/17/isiss-very-own-jabba-hutt-captured-mosul.html

where in the world is Eric Ciaramella?

 

[middleview]

Why did Trump want an investigation? To combat which sources of Ukrainian corruption? Is there some corruption the Bidens were involved in or not? If it had anything to do with Burisma then Hunter Biden would be able to explain how there was no such concerns.
Why was a prosecutor fired there when there were open investigations of Burisma?
Joe Biden used force of threat to have the prosecutor fired, an act he has boasted about. Let’s have him answer questions as to how his actions do not merit an abuse of power charge while he feels Trump’s do.

If Trump ordered people to ignore subpoenas or deny requests to testify, the House Dems had further judicial action to compel them to listen. Why ignore the court process to get them to testify? Why the hot rush to impeach rather than use a common approach to question privilege?

If Trump was actually interested in corruption in Ukraine, why only investigate the Bidens? Why does Trump think Crowdstrike is a Ukrainian company? If the DOJ suspected Joe Biden abused his position, why isn't Trump' DOJ investigating?

Calling Biden to testify is just a ruse to hurt Joe in the primaries and has nothing to do with Trump's self serving abuse of power or his obstruction of congress.

 

[middleview]

Nice semantics.
Quid pro quo remains not illegal and its use not an abuse of power.
You ignored the things I absolutely detonated in your post.

Your bullshit.....

View attachment 47864

It was an abuse of power to order OMB to hold the funds and not inform congress.

It was also obstruction to order federal employees to ignore subpoenas.

 

[llovejim]

(sigh)

The OMB disagrees, citing past precedent of latitude being given to Presidents to manage appropriations in accordance with policy initiatives.

“We disagree with GAO’s opinion,” Semmel said. “OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law.”

Also, the ICA has a procedure DIRECTLY on point regarding a failure of the executive branch to convey a special message giving a rationale for withholding aid. Again, it isn't impeachment:



View attachment 47866




The other issue here that makes this decision by the GAO questionable is that the aid was released before it was legally required to be appropriated.

In other words, these are administrative machinations by which the law calls for administrative fixes to. There will be no criminal charges and impeachment is not a recommended remedy for any scenario under the current statutes.



You got hammered here Jim. Look I know you are visual- videos and such. But facts and law are on my side.

so you somehow believe because you disagree with what the GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORTED- THAT TRUMP ILLEGALLY FROZE MILITARY AID- that means it does not count?

are you nuts?

 

[voyager]

I heard someone say it before he even decided to run. It's like they were clairvoyant or something.

 

[Dino]

It was an abuse of power to order OMB to hold the funds and not inform congress.

It was also obstruction to order federal employees to ignore subpoenas.

I'm not explaining these things to you more than twice. It's already been explained to you how Congress's subpoenas get responded to and where it goes next.
Hint:
it's NOT impeachment.

 

[llovejim]

so, what the whistelblower said is unimportant? Ok. There goes your whole case. BYE BYE, nice impeachment.

what does the whistleblower's knowledge or lack of knowledge to what trump did have to do with what 17 sworn witnesses, two of them called by Repubs, all testified to- that trump and rudy used military aid and a visit to the white house as leverage to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens to help Trump personally and politically and was not any part of official US foreign policy? why are you stuck on stupid? what would either biden know about what trump did, so how is their testimony relevant?

if hunter biden was charged by a Ukraine or US court with some crime connected to Burisma, should the whistleblower be called as a witness? or Trump? do you see how silly it is to believe the reverse? that somehow the whistleblower and especially either biden have any relevant info concerning how corrupt trump is? the whistleblower was repeating what he heard others say, either overheard or directly to him...and he took it to the Inspector General for INVESTIGATION...the IG determined, through his investigation, what he said was reliable and credible enough to warrant a complete investigation...and all the witnesses confirmed it...

 

[middleview]

I'm not explaining these things to you more than twice. It's already been explained to you how Congress's subpoenas get responded to and where it goes next.
Hint:
it's NOT impeachment.

Letting Trump run out the clock, using legal process to delay.

Where is the requirement that the House have to use the courts rather than impeachment when the president decides to withhold witnesses?