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

[tgw]

this Ukraine business raises several questions

 

the first one - has there been funny business going on with the Bidens, father and son?

 

-> if yes, Trump is pressuring the Ukrainians to turn over legit evidence in order to politically damage the Bidens in exchange for resumed US help of 400m

-> if no, is Trump blackmailing the Ukrainians to fabricate evidence against the Bidens in exchange for 400m ?

 

Is Trump asking Ukraine for evidence against a political adversary legal?

 

Beyond the above questions is also the very serious question about the White House's capacity of action. Is it normal that the White House can't talk with other countries without many people listening in and risking that a political opponent will derail efforts? From my point of view it kind of cripples the White House.

 

Let's for one moment suppose some US political personality really was involved in illegal business abroad, let's for one moment suppose it's Trump's son for example. Democrats certainly would use it in the campaign - what would be the proper process to get the relevant information from another country's government?

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now this is odd . . . and very convenient.  Also, it's been reported that Schiff has had a copy of the whistle blower's complaint since Aug. 12th.  Only saw one source for that info so I wouldn't call it confirmed . . . yet.

 

 

Why has no one replied to this?  This is not opinion.  It hard, cold fact.  Where and how does it fit into this narrative?  Do you guys have any idea?

 

I was sceptical as with all things political, but looking deeper the form change seems real. It also did not originate with the Federalist but was discovered by Stephen McIntire, a Canadian climate blogger and retired mining consultant. (yes this is not the climate thread). He reported it the day before and also analysed the pdf file, which was oddly revised two days ago in spite of the new form showing the reported August-2019 revision.

 

Here is the real govt form https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/Hotline/Urgent Concern Disclosure Form.pdf

Here is McIntyre's twitter with the older forms and discussion. https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit

 

Also note that no one at the White house could legally file such a form, it is only for the intelligence community.

[BestB]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm no.

 

The whistleblower report is a source that has been proven by means of evidence released by the WH to be credible.

 

Which is precisely why you and other Trump supporters are putting so much energy into trying to discredit the whistleblower.

Any reason why whistleblower is writing like a well prepared lawyer ? And using language identical to Schiff but a month prior ?

 

[candide]

14 minutes ago, tgw said:

this Ukraine business raises several questions

 

the first one - has there been funny business going on with the Bidens, father and son?

 

-> if yes, Trump is pressuring the Ukrainians to turn over legit evidence in order to politically damage the Bidens in exchange for resumed US help of 400m

-> if no, is Trump blackmailing the Ukrainians to fabricate evidence against the Bidens in exchange for 400m ?

 

Is Trump asking Ukraine for evidence against a political adversary legal?

 

Beyond the above questions is also the very serious question about the White House's capacity of action. Is it normal that the White House can't talk with other countries without many people listening in and risking that a political opponent will derail efforts? From my point of view it kind of cripples the White House.

 

Let's for one moment suppose some US political personality really was involved in illegal business abroad, let's for one moment suppose it's Trump's son for example. Democrats certainly would use it in the campaign - what would be the proper process to get the relevant information from another country's government?

Your first questions have already been extensively discussed so I will focus on your last two points:

- when two chiefs of state interact with each other, they represent their countries. So it is necessary to keep a record of it. Imagine one of them later says" you told me that..." and there is no record to check. Imagine a new chief of state wants to know what has been told before. Imagine (that's purely hypothetical, lol) the POTUS does not remember what he said before.

- on the last point, I am not a lawyer but I guess there's no other possible way than an official investigation.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

[Tippaporn]

30 minutes ago, candide said:

 

I have summarised for you the main points (from Wikipedia, BBC, etc...)

So, according to you, it's not true that:

- its a far-right organisation?

- it has been critised by several people and organisations for diffusing conspiracy theories?

- it has published Star Spangled Sharia, Civilisation Jihad, and Muslim Colonisation of America?

 

Pt. 1 - Far-right, far-left, I don't care.  I'll explain.  I don't accept information solely because it's leaning one way or another.  Myself, I'm neither right, center, or left.  I'm just out for the truth.  The truth is all that matters to me.

Pt. 2 - When I disseminate information I do not use any organisation to fact check for me, nor do I give a rat's <deleted> about other's opinions.  Not to say I wouldn't keep that critique or opinion in mind but in the end I decide for myself based on what makes sense given the totality of information I have.

Pt. 3 - I don't hold up any publisher as gospel.  Publishers are people.  People are fallible.  People are biased.  Sometimes they're correct, other times they're wrong.  So I reserve the right to make up my own mind.

 

Given all of that if I do not have enough info to come to a definitive conclusion I will conclude that I simply don't know and cannot make a determination.  I do speculate, which is necessary when information is lacking.  I do try and consider all possibilities and I do not rule out possibilities out of hand.  I use common sense, my own abilities, and I research myself to ascertain the truth.  Any viewpoint on any subject must be free of gaps and holes; all the facts must fit or be accounted for as best as possible.  I'm a skeptic and distrustful.  I harbor no bias but I do express my opinion based on what knowledge I currently have in my possession.

 

I am neither Dem or Republican, nor am I libertarian.  I subscribe to no ideology nor am I affiliated with any party.  I'm against parties of any kind as they tend toward corruption over time.  I do not believe any politician will be my savior nor do I seek for them to be so.  Actually, just leave me the f alone and allow me to live my life.  Therefore I am not a Trump follower nor am I a follower of any other politician.

 

I attempt to view reality as accurately as possible.  I do not attempt to distort it as I would only be fooling myself.  Just gimme some truth.  Fair enough?????

 

 

[tgw]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

Your first questions have already been extensively discussed so I will focus on your last two points:

- when two chiefs of state interact with each other, they represent their countries. So it is necessary to keep a record of it. Imagine one of them later says" you told me that..." and there is no record to check. Imagine a new chief of state wants to know what has been told before. Imagine (that's purely hypothetical, lol) the POTUS does not remember what he said before.

- on the last point, I am not a lawyer but I guess there's no other possible way than an official investigation.

- firstly, it's not two chiefs of state discussing, it's underlings.

- also, I imagine and think that every conversation isn't and shouldn't be on the record, this would make exchanging ideas and discussing hypotheticals impossible, as well as negociations where people will bluff, lie, etc.

 

regarding official investigations, this is a joke. how would one country investigate something that took place outside its jurisdiction and potentially isn't even illegal in the US (just frowned upon) or didn't break any laws in the other country?

it's too impractical.

hypothetical question - would it be illegal for a US politician to pay a paparazzi to photograph a politcal adversary while committing adultery in another country?

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I believe your boy candide already has this covered.  See my reply to his post.

Well, the NY POst article, which you seemed to find convincing, actually proves the point. Basically the author contended "it can't be a coincidence that..." about several things. So yeah, that's the paranoid style. And people who find that sort of thing convincing don't know what genuine evidence looks like.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Slip said:

Were you not just criticising your opponents for using non-credible sources? 

(Sorry- forgot link) https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/
 

 

 

I've pointed out sources where evidence exists that they engage in fake reporting.  I avoid them.  I wouldn't go so far as to say they always engage in fake reporting because that wouldn't be true.  But, once they've been shown to err too often, and especially deliberately, I don't waste my time to sort out when they're being honest and when they're not.  As far as the MSM goes, have you noticed how they all report similarly?  As if with a single voice.  Creeps me out if you ask me. (Of course 90% of all media in the U.S. is owned by, I believe, 6 corporations.)

 

I may post sources but don't jump to the conclusion that I then consider it a source beyond reproach and trustworthy of everything they report.  Everyone has bias.  Everyone.

 

If you've read my previous post then you'll know that I myself find fact checkers useless.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Tippaporn

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, tgw said:

 

 

Let's for one moment suppose some US political personality really was involved in illegal business abroad, let's for one moment suppose it's Trump's son for example. Democrats certainly would use it in the campaign - what would be the proper process to get the relevant information from another country's government?

Well, for one thing, if there was such evidence it should be turned over to the Justice Dept and/or State Dept to investigate. It should definitely not be spearheaded by a partisan figure such as the President's private attorney. Even if said attorney were a lot less of an atack dog than Rudolph Giuliani.

Edited September 28, 2019 by bristolboy

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm no.

 

The whistleblower report is a source that has been proven by means of evidence released by the WH to be credible.

 

Which is precisely why you and other Trump supporters are putting so much energy into trying to discredit the whistleblower.

Chomper, once again I have no idea what you are on about.  You're responding to a response I made to Becker which had nothing to do about the whistle blower report.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You find it odd that nobody takes your claims ‘that it has been reported that (insert hogwash)’ seriously?!

I provided factual evidence, Chomper.  Are you telling me you don't take factual evidence seriously?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, tgw said:

<>

Is Trump asking Ukraine for evidence against a political adversary legal?

<>

Go back a few pages.  I posted a vid in which they have a Bill Clinton era copy of a treaty that expressly allows Trump to do that.  Of course not for political gain, which is the Dem's claim. I repeat claim.  In the vid they also point out that running for president does not protect you from being investigated.  So Trump is within the law, according to the information in that video.  I believe the Dem's would have to prove that Trump's intent was for political gain.  Might be tough to do.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Tippaporn

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I provided factual evidence, Chomper.  Are you telling me you don't take factual evidence seriously?

I take it as serious that conway trump and giuliano have admitted to what the whistleblower said

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Go back a few pages.  I posted a vid in which they have a Bill Clinton era copy of a treaty that expressly allows Trump to do that.  Of course not for political gain, which is the Dem's claim. I repeat claim.  In the vid they also point out that running for president does not protect you from being investigated.  So Trump is within the law, according to the information in that video.  I believe the Dem's would have to prove that Trump's intent was for political gain.  Might be tough to do.

Yeah real tough. Biden being a frontrunner already cleared and trump wanting it reopened.

 

If it wasnt for political gain he could ask the fbi to investigate. Or better still ask ukraine govt to investigate other corruption.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yeah real tough. Biden being a frontrunner already cleared and trump wanting it reopened.

 

If it wasnt for political gain he could ask the fbi to investigate. Or better still ask ukraine govt to investigate other corruption.

As far as I know, and I could be wrong, Joe Biden had never been investigated regarding the quid pro quo in the Ukraine.  If he's never been investigated then he couldn't have been cleared.  Let me know if I'm wrong.

 

The FBI has been undergoing some trust issues of late.  The request, I believe, is related to spygate, or Russiagate if you prefer.  Trump and many, many other people will not rest until the truth about the Russia hoax is unraveled.  Which, according to some people, has the Dems in such a tizzy about getting Trump impeached.  Because if the Russia hoax is indeed not a Russia hoax but spygate instead, and that if spygate were to go all the way to the top of government (Obama) then you could imagine how many heads would, perhaps literally, roll.

 

Now I know, reactions to this post will be numerous cute, laughing faces and I may even be branded a (gosh, no!!) tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.  But that's my explanation of why Trump is specifically requesting help with Biden and the DNC server.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As far as I know, and I could be wrong, Joe Biden had never been investigated regarding the quid pro quo in the Ukraine.  If he's never been investigated then he couldn't have been cleared.  Let me know if I'm wrong.

 

The FBI has been undergoing some trust issues of late.  The request, I believe, is related to spygate, or Russiagate if you prefer.  Trump and many, many other people will not rest until the truth about the Russia hoax is unraveled.  Which, according to some people, has the Dems in such a tizzy about getting Trump impeached.  Because if the Russia hoax is indeed not a Russia hoax but spygate instead, and that if spygate were to go all the way to the top of government (Obama) then you could imagine how many heads would, perhaps literally, roll.

 

Now I know, reactions to this post will be numerous cute, laughing faces and I may even be branded a (gosh, no!!) tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.  But that's my explanation of why Trump is specifically requesting help with Biden and the DNC server.

You don’t know very far and you are wrong.

[stevenl]

*Deleted post edited out*

Trump resigning, no chance. He'll have to be dragged out.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I saw a mention, and I can't remember where now, that Schiff has had a copy of the complaint since Aug. 12th.  If that's true that would explain what you're alluding to in your post.  And it would be very, very interesting in other ways.

You can’t remember.

 

AKA you can’t substantiate your claim.

[bristolboy]

46 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As far as I know, and I could be wrong, Joe Biden had never been investigated regarding the quid pro quo in the Ukraine.  If he's never been investigated then he couldn't have been cleared.  Let me know if I'm wrong.

 

The FBI has been undergoing some trust issues of late.  The request, I believe, is related to spygate, or Russiagate if you prefer.  Trump and many, many other people will not rest until the truth about the Russia hoax is unraveled.  Which, according to some people, has the Dems in such a tizzy about getting Trump impeached.  Because if the Russia hoax is indeed not a Russia hoax but spygate instead, and that if spygate were to go all the way to the top of government (Obama) then you could imagine how many heads would, perhaps literally, roll.

 

Now I know, reactions to this post will be numerous cute, laughing faces and I may even be branded a (gosh, no!!) tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.  But that's my explanation of why Trump is specifically requesting help with Biden and the DNC server.

Maybe he's never been investigated because there has to be a reasonable basis for it. And if there were a reasonable basis for it, the Ukrainian government should be asked to liaise with the Dept of Justice - not with Rudolph Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer and attack dog.

[Chomper Higgot]

My Trump supporting friends,

 

Rather than waste time wondering why a career professional writes like a career professional ponder this:

 

The transcript released by Trump is devastating for Trump, an admission of guilt.

 

Who talked him into believing releasing proof of his guilt was a good idea?

[Jingthing]

Trump resigning, no chance. He'll have to be dragged out.

It depends on how this develops really.

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

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What I know is the WH has released information confirming the veracity of the whistleblower report and an impeachment investigation is now in full swing.

 

As you yourself pointed out earlier, more information and facts will come to light.

 

An example of which is the whistleblower identifying where the WH tried to hide the transcripts of Trump’s call(s).

 

This is getting worse for Trump by the hour.

 

What I don’t know is, will he be impeached or will he resign.

 

My money is on him trying to cut a deal and resigning.

 

Enjoy.

Now I did see an article earlier this afternoon providing an explanation as to the "hiding" of the transcripts.  Just looked and can't find it.  But the gist was that due to previous leaks of Trumps calls with the heads of Australia and Mexico that protocol had been changed to prevent leaks.  I can't remember much more detail as I glossed over the article while searching for something else.  But the article did go on to say that there was nothing extraordinary about it.

 

Just a head's up that information about that aspect is already out there.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now I did see an article earlier this afternoon providing an explanation as to the "hiding" of the transcripts.  Just looked and can't find it.  But the gist was that due to previous leaks of Trumps calls with the heads of Australia and Mexico that protocol had been changed to prevent leaks.  I can't remember much more detail as I glossed over the article while searching for something else.  But the article did go on to say that there was nothing extraordinary about it.

 

Just a head's up that information about that aspect is already out there.

 

Referring to another article you can’t find.

 

You’re on a roll today.

 

 

 

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, BestB said:

You mean this?https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/09/27/wait-a-minute-tweet-adam-schiffty-schiff-sent-out-a-month-ago-looks-very-very-familiar-hint-whistleblower/

Which doesn't look familiar to the complaint at all.

[BestB]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh so questioning Trump’s actions as they happen is evidence of having seen a whistleblower report.

 

Away with your nonsense.

One month prior and using same wording, Yep totally normal????

[Tug]

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The truth is, Chomper, you have no idea whether I'm right or wrong.  Tell me, what do you know about spygate?  If you have zero knowledge of it then you would not be in a position to claim that I'm wrong.  Sensical, ain't it?

Nope

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies reported and removed.   Continued posting of conspiracy theories, nonsense bickering and baiting will earn suspensions.  

 

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now I did see an article earlier this afternoon providing an explanation as to the "hiding" of the transcripts.  Just looked and can't find it.  But the gist was that due to previous leaks of Trumps calls with the heads of Australia and Mexico that protocol had been changed to prevent leaks.  I can't remember much more detail as I glossed over the article while searching for something else.  But the article did go on to say that there was nothing extraordinary about it.

 

Just a head's up that information about that aspect is already out there.

 

So far you have made quite a few claims here, all either without link/substantiation or from alt right sources. 

Please credible links or stop making claims. I must say though you have apparently studied Trump's playbook well and are putting it to good use.

Edited September 28, 2019 by stevenl

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Maybe he's never been investigated because there has to be a reasonable basis for it. And if there were a reasonable basis for it, the Ukrainian government should be asked to liaise with the Dept of Justice - not with Rudolph Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer and attack dog.

Or maybe there's another possibility, as yet unknown, as to why an investigation has never been opened.  Perhaps despite there being a reasonable basis for it.  We don't know.  Impossible to conclude definitively without more information.  We can only speculate at this point.

 

It was in the transcript that Trump mentioned that he would like to have Bill Barr contact his Ukrainian counterpart.  That's obviously confirmed since it's in the transcript.  I do not possess the expertise to know whether or not involving his personal lawyer is appropriate or inappropriate.  I would assume that it's appropriate and I would be shocked if it wasn't.  I'd have a hard time believing Trump didn't ensure that all was above board.  I understand that statement runs contrary to the prevailing sentiment here but, to be honest, I love the cute, laughing face reactions. LOL