Why does the whistleblower's identity matter?

Sorry for your confusion.

 

I didn't say "implied by his political opposition." I said "implied by his actions." And one of his many actions includes the effort to cover it up (eg, denying the WB's complaint before the call transcript was released which vindicated the WB, storing call records in secret servers, denying knowing Parnas, firing Yovanovitch, trying to fire investigators, blocking subpoenas, etc.)

Also you can stop with Hunter and the WB argument. There is nothing here that exonerates Trump's actions. Give it up dude.

 

That's what I thought. You have no rebuttal and no defense for Trump's actions.

 

There is no mountain of evidence, nor any admissions.

The only mountains are of assumptions, presumptions, opinions, and mischaracterizations.

 

So you also have no rebuttal or defense for Trump's actions.

 

Of course not. There's no need for any. He did nothing wrong.

What is your defense of the fraudulent charges levied against him?

 

No the evidence you referenced simply shows he asked them to investigate. What evidence do you have that it was to benefit his campaign and not because of a corrupt Vice President.

There’s a difference in saying he asked for an investigation and saying he asked for an investigation for the express purpose of benefiting his re-election.

 

Do I really need to spell it out for you?

(1) Trump didn't want a real investigation...only a public announcement of an investigation by Zelensky & Barr. This was simply to discredit Biden, damage his reputation, and weaken his bid for presidency.
(2) Trump never mentioned his desire to fight/root out corruption in the transcript. Nor was there any indication by any witnesses that he was interested in doing so. His only focus was on Biden & the fake 2016 election conspiracy. All the while, Trump ignores the corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs, including the oligarchs who were/are working with Russia/Putin.
(3) Trump lied about withholding aid. There's no need to lie about withholding aid if the purpose in doing so was purely to compel Ukraine to fight corruption. Trump withheld taxpayer aid as a bargaining chip to force Zelensky to announce fake investigations.
(4) Do the math! Of course this would benefit Trump's campaign. Trump does ANYTHING to benefit his campaign, as was demonstrated when he violated campaign finance laws (when 37 people around him were indicted by Mueller) & accepted foreign aid/help during the 2016 race.

If Trump really was interested in rooting out Ukraine corruption then there would be no need to lie about it, cover it up, hide call records, or block subpoenas/documents...and he would've had the support of an international group in doing so. Plus...congress had already vetted Ukraine and green-lighted aid to be provided to the country.

You do realize you wouldn't be so "skeptical" & beating this dead horse if Obama or Hillary were on trial, right? Yet, you'll even go after Biden when Biden's not even on trial or being investigated!

 

Rather than keep playing this endless game with you, how about I just use your tactics?

What is your evidence that Schiff, Pelosi, the whistleblower, the Bidens, or Yovanovitch did anything wrong? (Note: none of them have even ever been investigated.) And tell me...can you prove any of the witnesses lied? Come on...where's your evidence?

 

Pelosi was dragged, kicking and screaming into the mess.

Schiff lied about the call and the coordination with the hoaxblower.

Governmental ethics rules require that even the appearance of conflicts of interest be avoided. Joe Biden engaged in many situations with the appearance of conflucts of interest.

Yovanovitch was working, without authorization, against the newly elected President of Ukraine.

Why do you ask me to prove that the witnesses lied about their opinions? It makes no difference, at all.

What is your defense for the fraudulent charges levied against Trump?

 

Trump wanted the Ukraine to investigate his political opponent.

Trump will be charged with that after he is defeated.

 

What is bizarre is that some of those in the congress and senate who voted on the WHISTLEBLOWER BILL giving anonymity to those who do it, are now the ones trying to countermand their own law.

 

Pelosi is a corporate shill. It would take a lot for her to do this.

Still...irrelevant to Trump's abuse of power.

How do you know? Where's the evidence? Hearsay?

Again...irrelevant to Trump's abuse of power...and also doesn't negate the whistleblower's vindication of what he exposed about Trump.

What does this have to do with Trump's abuse of power? (Not to mention, Trump's multiple violations of conflict of interest.)

She was extremely professional, worked under different presidents, and received numerous recommendations. This tells me she would've been a threat to any corruption involving Zelensky, Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, Fruman, etc. (In other words, she would've stood in the way of the Trump-Giuliani-Parnas "drug deal.")

Every witness + the call transcript + text records all corroborated the whisleblower's complaint. How are the witness testimonies just "opinions" when their stories are backed by multiple sources...while Trump's claims have no evidentiary basis.

You mean what is Trump's defense? He has none.

 

By the way...love your avatar!

Did you make it yourself?

 

Look at all the deflections, dodges, and fabrications!

There is no "Trump's abuse of power". Stop making crap up.

Why won't you address my points? Instead you deflect to imaginings.

OMB reported that Zelensky was ethical. Now, you choose to make up a slander against him.

The call transcript did not corroborate the false charges. The opinions of witnesses cannot corroborate the false charges. Opinions are not evidence.

Now, are you going to address my question, or will you keep making stuff up?

What is your defense of the false charges brought against Trump?

 

It's his political opposition making the implications based on his perceived actions, that is not evidence. When we he informed of the alleged whistleblowers complaint? How long before he released it? And the alleged WB got LOTS wrong and the reason is was like other such calls stored in secured safes was because people like Vindman were leaking such information, he does not know Parnas he merely met him at a dinner and firing Yovanovitch was a justified act on his part, and claims or executive privilege are within his Constitution authority.

They had nothing, the impeachment produced nothing and Hunter Biden and his schemes still need to be investigated along with the WB's and Schiffs.

 

Yeah...look at all your deflections, dodges, and fabrications!

Trump didn't get impeached because of a lack of evidence.
And the senate didn't refuse to allow further witnesses/evidence because of a lack of evidence either, but because there was TOO much evidence.

CONCLUSION: Trump is guilty.

I already did. You just can't accept it...which is why you keep repeating the same replies.

Next time choose a better president to try to defend. Trump was a very poor choice, which only makes your effort to defend him look idiotic. I hope you're just a blind, deluded loyalist and not actually serious about Trump being innocent.

The DOD & Pentagon vetted Ukraine by certifying the nation met corruption benchmarks...not the White House's OMB.

Also, they don't say "Zelensky is ethical."
Slander Zelensky? I had no idea you knew so much about Zelensky & his private life to proclaim him as "ethical".

Interesting how all those "opinions" (as you call it) just happen to perfectly corroborate one another, the whistleblower's complaint, the call transcript, call records, text messages, and OMB records...plus the admissions by Mulvaney, Bolton, and Parnas.

I answered all your questions. Go beat another dead horse.

I answered all your questions. Go beat another dead horse.

 

Nope. Each confirmed item in the WB's complaint is listed here:

The whistleblower's complaint has largely been corroborated
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/09/7761...laint-has-largely-been-corroborated-heres-how

What is your evidence that the calls were stored in a secure server because Vindman was leaking info? Just making more stuff up...or is that Trump and/or FOX News talking through you?

Trump knew Parnas VERY well. Have you not seen all the pics, videos, note, and audio recording?
Here is the taped conversation where Trump, Parnas & others are talking at a dinner and Trump says "Get rid of her...Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it." (referring to Yovanovitch). Talk about an obvious conspiracy! (So much for the claim that Parnas was lying.)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/25/poli...nas-igor-fruman-ukraine-ambassador/index.html

Sorry...Biden, Schiff, and the WB (now) are irrelevant. They don't bear any influence on the nature of the evidence presented thus far.

 

"Next time choose a better president to try to defend. Trump was a very poor choice, which only makes your effort to defend him look idiotic. I hope you're just a blind, deluded loyalist and not actually serious about Trump being innocent."

Finally! A hint of truth.

All of the fake crap that you defend is simply because you oppose the result of an election.

Please take your bananna republic tactics to an existing bananna republic.

 

I couldn't care less who is president. The president is a puppet of much more powerful people who run the global banking network. I don't even vote and never have. The whole system is rigged to always maintain all power & resources in the hands of the few and to only benefit the few. The only way to disarm the "system" is to eliminate the system.

But, as pointless as our discussions are, it's still fun to debate this stuff.

 

Now I am confused.

Your posts support the establishment position that you're now saying that you oppose.

Then you say it's fun.

Makes me think that you're here playing a game.

 

Let's clear up some misunderstandings.

Trump was, yes, impeached, bigly.

 

It's partly a game...but I also sometimes feel compelled to expose false beliefs & myths. There's no support from me for the establishment. There's a reason it's called "the establishment", you know. It's designed to enslave the people...and imprison their minds...which is why the people have such great difficulty thinking beyond "the establishment" paradigm.

 

And he was acquitted just as bigly.