Hey wasn't the whistle blower a registered democrat and someone who worked for Biden? Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest?
Don't take this question as a political debate question, but rather my concern for how the Whistleblower Protection Act works. Queston: Do we know who the whistleblower is? I missed that, if we do.
I guess he's going to say it was quid pro quo for a White House visit, but not about the military aid. And then Trump will insist such stuff is normal. Quid pro quo for military aid would be a smoking gun, but a WH visit, not so much, probably. I'm not saying that from a legal standpoint, but rather speculation as to how it will play out in Senate debates.
We don’t. He’s just regurgitating crap that POTUS said in a news conference. POTUS knows he can say anything and the Trump bots will repeat it as fact.
Bartering a WH visit for a "favor" is still an abuse of the office. WH will continue their talking point that the "favor"/"deliverable" was to fight corruption in Ukraine and aligned with US interests. Also it's clear from the texts that sondland knew aid was being withheld.
visit >>>>> 1 favor they can discuss multiple and bigger favors during the visit and everyone know ukraine wants to talk primarily because of the aid being held up anyway
the asking for dirt itself should be enough... the implied quid pro quo should be enough... any type of direct quid pro quo should be more than enough... but with this GOP senate, you are right about the smoking gun, maybe ...
Running for office doesn't make your corruption immune from investigation. It is in fact more prudent to inquire than to ignore the problem.
So yall just gonna pretend the whistle blower isn't a registered democrat and worked personally for Biden when he was VP.... Nope nothing unusual there eh.
There isn’t much of anything unusual that a career CIA official who reportedly worked at the NSC would have some type of professional relationship with the cabinet members. There isn’t anything unusual for members of the government to have some type of contact and worked together. The WB lawyer has stated that the WB has been in apolitical position for his entire career. You are saying he worked personally for Biden, implying a political motivation. Given that we don’t know the identity other than the type of job he performed, I’m not sure how anyone established that. Could it have started with a reasonable educated guess that he must have to be in contact with Biden due to his professional job gets translated over the internet rumor to he personally worked for Biden in a political position? still, the message... politically you want to attack the messenger when the message is damming and in fact proven true. It ties in with it’s a witch hunt, there is a deep state, they are out to get me, I’m a biggest victim in the universe .... but at the end of the day, if the message is true (and it is), we have to deal with the message.
I don't mind that you're partisan, all of us here are- what's ridiculous is how you pretend you aren't when called out on it. We've all seen you complain at length about unnamed sources; it seems that this unconfirmed information is good enough to be taken as fact for you, eh? Let's say the original whistleblower (there's more than one now, and likely to be even more before this is over) is a registered democrat who worked for Biden and is therefore biased... The possible biases of the whistleblower are irrelevant if almost every point in his report is confirmed by the partial transcript released by the white house, which it did. The recent testimony of Marie Yovanovich confirms the WB report. The WB report sourced several other intelligence officers, and several of them are on the docket to give testimony, along with Perry, Giuliani, and many others. It's already been explained to you multiple times that merely asking for assistance from a foreign national or government in an election campaign is illegal. Trump has already admitted to this on TV. He has broken the law and is worthy to be impeached. That's why 16 conservative lawyers signed a letter calling for impeachment. That's (one reason) why 17 prosecutors of Whitewater publicly agreed that he should be impeached. A quid pro quo for a meeting with the president is just frosting. A quid pro quo on releasing the 400m of aid is a wheelbarrow of frosting. I'm writing this post as if I'm addressing you, dachuda, but I'm not, because I've seen you countless times utterly ignore thoughtful, well composed posts by myself and others explaining the details of this to you. This post is just for the lurkers who might get something out of reading it. You can go on ignoring this post and the many others that negate your narrative. By all means, continue explaining to us how you aren't a fan of Trump while you twist yourself into a pretzel defending him and decrying anyone who accuses him.
No, I'm going to acknowledge that might be true and say that it doesn't change the facts in the case.
So the whistle blower doesn't matter? So the fact that he has a huge conflict of interest isn't a big deal. Ok got it.
I don't know of any conflict of interest. Does the fact that the Whistleblower worked personally for President Trump demonstrate that he has a conflict of interest? The information shows he had a job that puts in him in contact with people running the government. It shows that he access to the information he provided when whistleblowing. All of that is secondary to the fact that his complaints have been confirmed now.
The problem you have with this is Trump cut funding for international corruption by 40 percent. If as you say he is doing this because of his stance on corruption why did he cut funding? Also why is he looking at only his rivalS. Explain to me why try and investigate Biden corruption and nothing else? Simple answer he is doing this to further his own person gains. He is using the office of the presidency to Achieve. People call that abuse of power. The lies he is spreading to cover up are so obvious to most people. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-proposed-major-cut-state-department-program-corruption-2019-10