Whistleblower complaint describes White House cover-up on Trump-Ukraine scandal

[BobBKK]

Just now, Jingthing said:

He will be impeached.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Stop saying that. You mean he will be investigated FOR impeachment. He will only BE impeached if some Reps vote against him. Clinton was never impeached (for example).

[Skeptic7]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Don't jump the gun just yet, Jingthing Tug.  All the details are not in and there's much more info to come.  LOL

LOL much more dirt on the dirt bag to come. It's on. Should have been started immediately after the Mueller report. 

[Silurian]

You know it is bad when Fox News is pulling away from Donald and even Hannity has concerns!

 

“IT’S MANAGEMENT BEDLAM”: MADNESS AT FOX NEWS AS TRUMP FACES IMPEACHMENT

 

Quote

This morning, Sean Hannity told friends the whistle-blower’s allegations are “really bad,” a person briefed on Hannity’s conversations told me.

And according to four sources, Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch is already thinking about how to position the network for a post-Trump future. 

 

[Jingthing]

I'm not so sure, to be fair.
There's a political issue that comes into play as well. The Democrats will have to take into account the high possibility that the President is never convicted of anything, and that is unlikely given what I have seen so far and that a two thirds majority vote in the Senate is required.

He will definitely be impeached in the house.
As far as being convicted and removed by the senate that's very unlikely.
A Nixon type resignation outcome is possible depending on how much public support there is for removal.
Remember when the Nixon impeachment process started it had weak public support as well.
Such things can change very fast.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Stop saying that. You mean he will be investigated FOR impeachment. He will only BE impeached if some Reps vote against him. Clinton was never impeached (for example).

That is incorrect.

 

[mtls2005]

7 minutes ago, Forethat said:

There's a political issue that comes into play as well. The Democrats will have to take into account the high possibility that the President is never convicted of anything, and that is unlikely given what I have seen so far and that a two thirds majority vote in the Senate is required.

 

I was quite clear. He will be impeached.

 

And he may not be convicted,

 

Forcing Republican Senators to vote for a president who committed high crimes and misdemeanors affecting national security to benefit his own re-election, puts them in an awkward position.

 

I think Republican Senators would convince the president to resign, like Nixon, by threatening to convict, for the good of the country and party.

 

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But. But.. But... But...But ... But... Biden.

 

Give it a rest already.

 

The topic is not Biden.

Chomper, the accusation against Trump specifically involves Biden.  And it involves Biden's quid pro quo to have the Ukrainian prosecutor fired and what his intent behind having him fired was.  Trump has every right to request assistance from foreign governments regarding anti-corruption efforts.  The crux of this scandal is that some are claiming Trump's request to the Ukrainian president was merely to get dirt on a rival political opponent that he is supposedly fearful of (bad) whereas others are claiming Trump's request had nothing to do with removing a political opponent but only to do with anti-corruption efforts.

 

The Ukraine was involved in the Russiagate scandal as well.  Trump, by rights, is looking into the origins of Russiagate.  So if those are Trump's true intentions with his request then no bad.

 

So, yes, this topic is not strictly about Trump.  It is about Biden as well.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Funny how you don't care about the VPs son making MILLIONS from a Ukraine company when Daddy is VP.

Does he speak Russian?  have any Ukraine expertise? or you don't care because his daddy is a Dem?

 

Second time this week. A Trump supporter going on about Nepotism. Doesn't get old.

[mtls2005]

13 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Clinton was never impeached (for example).

 

Fail. Epic.

 

Clinton was Impeached. So was Andrew Johnson.

 

Neither were convicted.

 

Or did you mean Hillary?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by mtls2005

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Caper’

 

is that you exhibiting the balanced and open minded view you insist all the rest of us adhere to?

 

That is my opinion.

[Jingthing]

If it looks as if the senate republicans will convict which at this point seems very unlikely then its hard to imagine that "trump" will choose to be the first president in history to be removed by an Impeachment conviction. But almost everything about "trump" is hard to imagine so it wouldn't shock me if he ended up choosing conviction over resignation.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[BestB]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But. But.. But... But...But ... But... Biden.

 

Give it a rest already.

 

The topic is not Biden.

Why should I give it a rest ? Does it not sit well with Trump haters that he is not the only one breaking the law?

 

And the whole thing came about because of Biden improper dealings.

 

Oh sorry, Dems never do wrong ????????

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 

Pathetic, dishonest, and embarrassing.

I was thinking the same thing about Trump.

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Fail. Epic.

 

Clinton was Impeached. So was Andrew Johnson.

 

Neither were convicted.

 

Or did you mean Hillary?

 

 

 

 

yes my mistake

[BestB]

19 minutes ago, Becker said:

And do you really think that if the GOP thought there was any meat to the allegations they would not have moved heaven and earth to investigate this matter already?

Seriously??

Whoever told you they will not ? Look at the history of say H Clinton . Oh wait it’s no biggie to delete emails . It’s obly big deal if Trump did it

 

if you want to be unbiased, you look at both allegations instead of turning blind eye to what suits you but bearing your chest to what does not 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Chomper, the accusation against Trump specifically involves Biden.  And it involves Biden's quid pro quo to have the Ukrainian prosecutor fired and what his intent behind having him fired was.  Trump has every right to request assistance from foreign governments regarding anti-corruption efforts.  The crux of this scandal is that some are claiming Trump's request to the Ukrainian president was merely to get dirt on a rival political opponent that he is supposedly fearful of (bad) whereas others are claiming Trump's request had nothing to do with removing a political opponent but only to do with anti-corruption efforts.

 

The Ukraine was involved in the Russiagate scandal as well.  Trump, by rights, is looking into the origins of Russiagate.  So if those are Trump's true intentions with his request then no bad.

 

So, yes, this topic is not strictly about Trump.  It is about Biden as well.

 Not so.

 

The accusation against Trump involves Trump’s attempt to solicit trumped up allegations against Biden (Pun intended).

[Scott]

Post from an unapproved source and replies removed also off-topic posts reported and removed.

 

[mtls2005]

3 minutes ago, BestB said:

Why should I give it a rest ?

 

Because it's off-topic, you're deflecting and seem to think that repeating mis-truths often enough makes them true.

 

But easy enough to add folks to the Ignore list, so there's always that. BRB.

 

 

[Why Me]

The whistleblower's allegations are just that, allegations. The only substance we have so far are the notes/transcripts of the call, which show no explicit quid pro quo.

 

This is going to go the way of "Russian collusion".

[Becker]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

Whoever told you they will not ? Look at the history of say H Clinton . Oh wait it’s no biggie to delete emails . It’s obly big deal if Trump did it

 

if you want to be unbiased, you look at both allegations instead of turning blind eye to what suits you but bearing your chest to what does not 

"Whoever told you they will not?"

1. So, any link to a source that says the GOP  will move ahead with investigations into this off topic issue? If there isn't any maybe you should ask them why.

 

"if you want to be unbiased, you look at both allegations instead of turning blind eye to what suits you but bearing your chest to what does not"

2. By all means investigate it all. But that leads us back to point # 1.

[BestB]

20 minutes ago, Farangwithaplan said:

Well I did explain and answered your initial question. Trump is president. That is the most senior power in the land. Biden was never the most powerful person in the land.

 

Now you are asking me new questions which differ to your original question so I will give you my thoughts on these new questions.

You would need to clearly and consicely explain to me what you believe Biden has"done or attempted to do." But I would prefer if you did it in a separate thread that you start.

 

The reason I say this is because this is a thread that has no relevance to Biden at all other than his name was referred to in documentation from a Whistleblower and also in telcon transcripts from the whitehouse. If you want to discuss Biden, why don't you make a separate thread so there can be clear lines of discussion on your concerns. This thread can then be kept clean and focused on the Whistleblower discussion.

 

You see, bringing in Biden into a direct discussion about the Whistleblower information muddies the waters. I am sure you want quality discussion so making a separate Biden thread will be the best way to do that. If I happen to see your Biden thread I will happily contribute so long as the discussion is amicable, fact based and intelligent and free of conspiracy.

 

Already in the last 2 days I must have blocked 5 or 6 people because their posts regarding this Whistleblower matter showed no insight, logic or ability to assimilate to any real level.

 

But I won't respond to you any more on this matter in this thread. I don't want to lose the focus on the thread's intent.

 

 

 

I do not actually need to do anything . It is alleged he used his position to influence the outcome of investigations into shady dealings of a company where his son was involved .

 

true or not, how and where should be investigated.

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[mtls2005]

5 minutes ago, Why Me said:

The whistleblower's allegations are just that, allegations.

 

Yes, that's why there will be an inquiry.

 

The DNI and the IC IG already said the complaint was credible, and of urgent concern.

 

The transcript alone is enough to prove the case for impeachment.

 

The Whistleblower Complaint points to a systemic cover-up. And as we all know, "it's the cover-up... ".

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by mtls2005

[Becker]

Just now, BestB said:

I do not actually need to do anything . It is alleged he used his position to influence the outcome of investigations into shady dealings of a company where his son was involved .

 

true or not, how and where should be investigated.

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

How about you starting a thread about the Biden allegations instead of constantly trying to derail and deflect from what is actually the topic of this thread?

Too much to ask?

[BestB]

Just now, Becker said:

"Whoever told you they will not?"

1. So, any link to a source that says the GOP  will move ahead with investigations into this off topic issue? If there isn't any maybe you should ask them why.

 

"if you want to be unbiased, you look at both allegations instead of turning blind eye to what suits you but bearing your chest to what does not"

2. By all means investigate it all. But that leads us back to point # 1.

Do you normally announce your attack in advance ?

 

So you agree, by all means it should be investigated ? Just not by Dem lead committees?????

[BestB]

Just now, Becker said:

How about you starting a thread about the Biden allegations instead of constantly trying to derail and deflect from what is actually the topic of this thread?

Too much to ask?

How about you do not tell me what I should or should not do?

[Farangwithaplan]

7 minutes ago, BestB said:

I do not actually need to do anything .

 

If you want an answer from me regarding your previous new question you do.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Farangwithaplan

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, BestB said:

Whoever told you they will not ? Look at the history of say H Clinton . Oh wait it’s no biggie to delete emails . It’s obly big deal if Trump did it

 

if you want to be unbiased, you look at both allegations instead of turning blind eye to what suits you but bearing your chest to what does not 

Presumably whatever charges that could be brought against Hillary Clinton or either of the Bidens would be federal charges, would they not? Federal charges arise from the US Justice Dept's regional districts. The US Justice Dept is within the Executive branch of the US Govt. headed by Donald Trump.  So, your questions with regard to why none of the above have been charged with a federal crime might be better directed to the Justice Dept.

[Becker]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

Do you normally announce your attack in advance ?

 

So you agree, by all means it should be investigated ? Just not by Dem lead committees?????

This is the last off topic deflection post I'l  reply to:

 

Do you really think that if the brown-noser William Barr had thought there was anything to the allegations he would not have started investigations?

You have avoided answering this question before and will likely do so again - no surprise there because it completely shreds your tiresome Biden deflections. 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Why Me said:

The whistleblower's allegations are just that, allegations. The only substance we have so far are the notes/transcripts of the call, which show no explicit quid pro quo.

 

This is going to go the way of "Russian collusion".

They are what the Director of National Intelligence referred to (under oath) as credible, in good faith and submitted in accordance with the law.

[BestB]

Just now, Farangwithaplan said:

If you want an answer from me you do.

Says who? And where did I demand or asked for your answer?