Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 05, 2019

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Monday demanded the media reveal the identity of the anonymous whistleblower who raised concerns about President Trump's contacts with Ukraine, leading to the House's impeachment inquiry.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I wonder what the Ruskies have on old squirrel nest head?

Must be something big. I'm thinking there is pictures of him enjoying some "man sausage" or pictures of him with an underage russian hooker.

#1 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-11-05 02:46 AM | Reply

A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]

Fat Nixon already violated this.

"Trump said Thursday that the person who helped the whistleblower was "close to a spy" while also mentioning the "old days" when governments would deal with spies differently, presumably a reference to capital punishment."

What's one more crime for the worst president in the history of the US?

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-11-05 07:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'm not really understanding this. Does the media really know the name of the WB? I thought only he or she's lawyer was the only person to know their identity in order to protect them.

#3 | Posted by rukiddin at 2019-11-05 01:29 PM | Reply

Trump's cult's obsession with the whistleblower is hilarious. As if this whole thing is just the whistleblower's word against trump's. That's probably the exact narrative they're trying to sell. And the morons will eat it right up.

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-05 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The WB is irrelevant at this point, given that what, 6? other people have come forth with corroborating evidence of the call so far? It is the president's duty to protect the WB.

Orange Furious must be completely innocent. Only innocent people behave this way.

#5 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-05 01:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

What's one more crime for the worst president in the history of the US?

#2 | POSTED BY NIXON

It seems like he's trying to come up with an impeachable offense every hour. He's largely succeeding.

#6 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-05 01:38 PM | Reply

#5

"Orange Furious"...that made me chuckle.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-05 01:43 PM | Reply

Paul Sperry from RealClearInvestigations has outlined the CIA "whistle-blower" who originated the hearsay complaint against President Trump as Eric Ciaramella.

According to the researched outline, Ciaramella worked closely with Democrat operative, Alexandra Chalupa in 2016 to advance the anti-Trump effort; and this year Ciaramella worked closely with HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff's staff to continue his efforts.

#8 | Posted by homerj at 2019-11-05 01:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

Trump's cult's obsession with the whistleblower is hilarious. As if this whole thing is just the whistleblower's word against trump's. That's probably the exact narrative they're trying to sell. And the morons will eat it right up.

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I don't think they'll think about it that much.

It's as simple as he has made them acknowledge, at least to themselves, what a horrible POS they voted into the Oval Office.

And that makes them angry and looking to lash out at that person, not change their way(s).

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-05 01:51 PM | Reply

Is the "anti-Drumpf effort" they're "advancing" basically a bunch of people who recognized illegal and traitorous behavior and reported it? Is that what we're calling "anti-Drumpf efforts?"

Nice parsing there. Bonus points for getting the words, "hearsay complaint," into that conspiratorial word salad.

#10 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-05 01:54 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

If he's auditioning to replace Mike Pence, Rand "manlet" Paul is gonna need some heel lifts in his shoes to meet Trump's "central casting" requirements.

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-05 01:58 PM | Reply

Paul Sperry from RealClearInvestigations has outlined the CIA "whistle-blower" who originated the hearsay complaint against President Trump as Eric Ciaramella.
According to the researched outline, Ciaramella worked closely with Democrat operative, Alexandra Chalupa in 2016 to advance the anti-Trump effort; and this year Ciaramella worked closely with HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff's staff to continue his efforts.

#8 | POSTED BY HOMERJ

And?

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-11-05 02:00 PM | Reply

Paul Sperry from RealClearInvestigations has outlined the CIA "whistle-blower" who originated the hearsay complaint against President Trump as Eric Ciaramella.

According to the researched outline, Ciaramella worked closely with Democrat operative, Alexandra Chalupa in 2016 to advance the anti-Trump effort; and this year Ciaramella worked closely with HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff's staff to continue his efforts.

#8 | Posted by homerj

sic em boys! You finally have your target! woof woof woof!

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-05 02:01 PM | Reply

I'll explain this again to the Trumptards:

If you commit murder and someone calls the police, and it turns out the guy who called the police hates your guts, the cops don't say "oh nevermind" and let you go.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-05 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

Remember when Trumpturds said the whistleblower didn't matter at all because the whistleblower's complaint was hearsay? That was back in the days when there was no quid pro quo and Trump's phone call was perfect.
Now it's absolutely essential that we blow the whistleblower's cover.

#15 | Posted by anton at 2019-11-05 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

Trump's call involved investigations that would lead to Eric. The WB and his cohorts discovered they are all being targeted for an investigation.

The WB approach is a coverup to avoid the Ukraine investgation of their wrongdoing.

RCP isnt the only one with the links to Eric. Watch YT of the Blaze's Ukraine. He is but one, along with the former ambassador, up to their necks with Biden in the Ukraine interference in the 2016 election.

#16 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-05 02:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 9

#16 | Posted by Petrous

Please post a link to the website where you get your propaganda so we can all laugh at you.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-05 03:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

#16 | Posted by Petrous

That's some serious conspiracy theory babel. Especially given who the guy that reported it to congress is about as conservative as you get.

#18 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-11-05 05:02 PM | Reply

up to their necks with Biden in the Ukraine interference in the 2016 election.

#16 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-05 02:53 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive | Funny: 2

The interference that got Trump elected?

#19 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-05 05:07 PM | Reply

up to their necks with Biden in the Ukraine interference in the 2016 election.

#16 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-05 02:53 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive | Funny: 2

So Biden wanted Trump elected to set him up for a loss, to Biden, in 2020?

Almost as genius as when Barack Obama knew he was going to be American president as a newborn in Kenya.

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-05 05:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That's some serious conspiracy theory babel.

#18 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

Just a sec. Is he serious? When I read it I was pretty sure he was joking, but I am no longer confident in that.

#21 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-05 05:36 PM | Reply

The source is there. Do your own research

#22 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-05 06:36 PM | Reply

The source is there. Do your own research

#22 | Posted by Petrous

You can't post a link because you're embarrassed of the source.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-05 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is stupid. The WB named names. Some of those have testified and have corroborated the gist of what the WB alleged. I don't care if he was politically motivated or not. What he reported, at its core, was essentially accurate.

The GOP is playing a losing hand. NOBODY forced Trump to bring up Biden. Nobody. Had it just been about Burisma and investigating corruption, this never would have been a problem for Trump.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 09:26 AM | Reply

#24 Did Trump give Ukraine the money? Yes
Did Ukraine re-start an investigation(that Biden had shutdown) before they got the money? No

It does not matter what the WB and any of the others THINK Trump meant. The identity of the WB does not deserve to be kept secret since the WB did not follow the proper WB protocall. He went to Schiff first (another lie by Schiff btw.)

#25 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-06 09:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Did Trump give Ukraine the money? Yes"

You're asking the wrong questions. The salient one is Did Trump purposefully delay the money for extortion purposes? YES.

"Did Ukraine re-start an investigation(that Biden had shutdown) before they got the money? No"

The investigation wasn't the issue. The announcement was the issue. And that plan got short-circuited by the whistleblower.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:02 AM | Reply

"Had it just been about Burisma and investigating corruption"

Oh, FFS. Are you still falling for that "we were investigating corruption" manure? When will you realize/admit the only two times Trump has ever cared about "corruption" is when it could falsely be pinned on his chief political rival?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:05 AM | Reply

You're asking the wrong questions. The salient one is Did Trump purposefully delay the money for extortion purposes? YES.#26 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-11-06 10:02 AM | FLAG:

That is opinion, mine were facts. Another opinion is that Trump delayed the money because Ukraine was corrupt and the money would not be used wisely. He has a history of this type of thinking when it comes to foreign aid. Why did Obama hold up aid to them?

#28 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-06 10:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Rand Paul calling for the outing of the Whistleblower is despicable. Republicans today have abandoned morality. And that is true for the average voting Republican just as truly as it is for the actual politician Republican. All of y'all know right from wrong but are pretending to be living in a post-morality world today. Hint, morality hasn't changed. You have.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-06 10:08 AM | Reply

Oh, FFS. Are you still falling for that "we were investigating corruption" manure? When will you realize/admit the only two times Trump has ever cared about "corruption" is when it could falsely be pinned on his chief political rival?

#27 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-11-06 10:05 AM | FLAG:

Again, opinion. You say Trump doesn't care about corruption because you hate him. Even if you are right and he doesn't care he still talks about in the transcript. Opinions of what he might have been thinking don't matter.

#30 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-06 10:13 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

When will you realize/admit the only two times Trump has ever cared about "corruption" is when it could falsely be pinned on his chief political rival?

Same with Obama/Hillary ... whats your point.

And that plan got short-circuited by the whistleblower.

Or the whistleblower is attempting to short-circuit an investigation in which he is a material witness; because he worked for Joe Biden while Hunter was "employed" by Ukrianian firm.

Was this conflict of interest mentioned?

The salient one is Did Trump purposefully delay the money for extortion purposes?

More salient did Joe Biden purposefully delay money for the extortion of favors, for his son.

#31 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-06 10:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Same with Obama/Hillary"

SQUIRREL! says Mackris.

" ... whats your point."

Anyone who buys Trump's excuse of "rooting out corruption" is a moron, completely ignoring THE ONLY TWO TIMES he's ever been concerned with corruption. So...I guess my point is...you're a moron.

"More salient did Joe Biden purposefully delay money for the extortion of favors, for his son."

So...is withholding taxpayer dollars for favors a BAD thing now? You idiots need to get one set of lies, and stick with them.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:24 AM | Reply

" did Joe Biden purposefully delay money"

You mean Biden and several Republicans, right? I mean, you'll admit if Biden is guilty, his Republican counterparts on that action were also all guilty, right?

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:25 AM | Reply

"Again, opinion "

Nonsense. Feel free to link to all the other times Trump was concerned with rooting out corruption.

"You say Trump doesn't care about corruption because you hate him."

No, I say anyone who believes Trump cares about corruption is a moron. And if you can't see the only two times he's ever been concerned were when they could falsely be pinned on his political rival, you're a moron, too.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:28 AM | Reply

Rand Paul calling for the outing of the Whistleblower is despicable. Republicans today have abandoned morality. And that is true for the average voting Republican just as truly as it is for the actual politician Republican. All of y'all know right from wrong but are pretending to be living in a post-morality world today. Hint, morality hasn't changed. You have.

#29 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-11-06 10:08 AM | FLAG:

Oh spare us your usual drama. Everyone in Washington already knows who he is. He didn't even go through the proper channels to be able to hide his identity. Schiff knows this that's why he doesn't want him to testify, that is why the Dems got this vote through with Schiff having the authority to veto any questions from Republicans or witnesses they want to call. Why is that? I thought you were all about transparancy? Doesn't the constitution say an accused is afforded the right to question his accuser? Why won't you let that happen? I'll tell you why, the WB wasn't a WB, he was simply a leaker coached by Schiff.

#35 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-06 10:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

More salient did Joe Biden purposefully delay money for the extortion of favors, for his son.

#31 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

And... even more more saliently... did GOP senators conspire with Biden to help his son extort favors from Ukraine...

www.cnn.com

Can we all agree that Republican Senators Rob Portman and Ron Johnson (as well as former senator Mark Kirk) need to testify under oath about what sort of insidious favors Biden bribed with them to get them to conspire with him to help his son extort favors from Ukraine?

As well as why they got involved with a pedophilia ring run out of the basement of a pizza parlor. And how is Hillary involved in the conspiracy? What did Hillary know and WHEN DID SHE KNOW IT!?!

#36 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-06 10:29 AM | Reply

" he doesn't care he still talks about in the transcript."

It's not a transcript, it's a summary. Do you know the difference, or not? My guess is you do, so please stop embarrassing yourself. It's NOT a transcript, and the folks wearing "read the transcript" T-shirts two nights ago are all...wait for it...morons.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:31 AM | Reply

So...is withholding taxpayer dollars for favors a BAD thing now? You idiots need to get one set of lies, and stick with them.

#32 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-11-06 10:24 AM | FLAG:

Lies? Trump did not withhold taxpayer money, repeat, Trump did not withhold taxpayer money. An investigation was not done in exchange for Taxpayer money.

#38 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-06 10:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Oh, FFS. Are you still falling for that "we were investigating corruption" manure? When will you realize/admit the only two times Trump has ever cared about "corruption" is when it could falsely be pinned on his chief political rival?

#27 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Why do you insist on cherry-picking quotes?

I flat out stated it was dumb for Trump to bring up Biden.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 10:32 AM | Reply

"Can we all agree that Republican Senators Rob Portman and Ron Johnson (as well as former senator Mark Kirk) need to testify under oath about what sort of insidious favors Biden bribed with them to get them to conspire with him to help his son extort favors from Ukraine?"

All you'll get from the morons are *crickets*. They won't even MENTION the Republicans while they schitt on Biden.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:33 AM | Reply

"I flat out stated it was dumb for Trump to bring up Biden."

And then pretended if Biden wasn't involved, Trump would still be concerned about corruption in Ukraine, and everything would be fine.

Trump isn't trying to root out corruption, ANYWHERE.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:36 AM | Reply

It's not a transcript, it's a summary. Do you know the difference, or not? My guess is you do, so please stop embarrassing yourself. It's NOT a transcript, and the folks wearing "read the transcript" T-shirts two nights ago are all...wait for it...morons.

#37 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-11-06 10:31 AM | FLAG:

Ok, so what is the WB's heresay going to add to it. Let's see here Mr. Moron, what would hold up in court, a transcript or as you call it a summery, or a third person heresay of the call? If you say the WB testimony than why not have him testify? And don't give us this "it could put his life in jeopardy crap." If his his testifying in public meant getting rid of Trump Democrats would have trotted him out months ago. Spare us your faux outrage.

#42 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-06 10:38 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Trump did not withhold taxpayer money"

That's a lie. Trump withheld it, and then Trump released it two days after the whistleblower complaint became public. Multiple people have testified under oath the US withheld money, and said releasing it was dependent on Zelenskyy making the Burisma announcement.

You're a gullible moron, and wherever you're getting your news is misleading you purposely.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:38 AM | Reply

Nice to see people talking about Joe Biden in a thread about Rand Paul. Looks like Trump's strategy is working.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 10:40 AM | Reply

"so what is the WB's heresay going to add to it."

We don't need the WB anymore. All of his/her claims have been corroborated.

"And don't give us this "it could put his life in jeopardy crap.""

Pizza parlor without a basement on Line #1 for you.

Seriously, if you don't believe identification will lead to retaliation, you're an even bigger moron than you seem.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:41 AM | Reply

"I flat out stated it was dumb for Trump to bring up Biden."
And then pretended if Biden wasn't involved, Trump would still be concerned about corruption in Ukraine, and everything would be fine.
Trump isn't trying to root out corruption, ANYWHERE.

#41 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I didn't pretend anything. My point was had Trump been more careful and subtle with his language he could have gotten his point across without setting off any alarms. He flat-out knew at least a dozen government workers were listening in on the call.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 10:45 AM | Reply

had Trump been more careful and subtle with his language, he could have gotten his point across without setting off any alarms

Not sure i agree with this. The people listening in on these calls aren't stupid. There isn't some secret code language that Trump can speak to Zelenskyy where only those two people understand that Trump wants him to investigate a political rival in exchange for meetings and military aid. If Trump "gets his point across" to Zelenskyy the point will have also gotten across to career NatSec officials who actually give a ---- about our country.

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 10:49 AM | Reply

" had Trump been more careful and subtle with his language he could have gotten his point across without setting off any alarms."

So, kinder, gentler strong-arming?

You sound like the real problem here is Trump's wrongs were discovered, and discovering a (R) crime is worse than committing it.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:51 AM | Reply

"He flat-out knew at least a dozen government workers were listening in on the call."

You're pretending Trump has the sense of a human being.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:52 AM | Reply

"I flat out stated "

OBAMA is going to get people killed.

not so much about Trump though, besides the excuse's.

#50 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-11-06 10:54 AM | Reply

You sound like the real problem here is Trump's wrongs were discovered, and discovering a (R) crime is worse than committing it.

Yep. To Jeff, it's not the extortion/bribery/campaign finance felony that's the problem, it's the way he worded it in which actual patriots easily saw what he was doing.

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 10:57 AM | Reply

You sound like the real problem here is Trump's wrongs were discovered, and discovering a (R) crime is worse than committing it.

#48 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I have no problem with Trump's wrongs being discovered.

This is from an earlier post you cherry-picked (in bold is what was omitted)

This is stupid. The WB named names. Some of those have testified and have corroborated the gist of what the WB alleged. I don't care if he was politically motivated or not. What he reported, at its core, was essentially accurate.

The GOP is playing a losing hand. NOBODY forced Trump to bring up Biden. Nobody. Had it just been about Burisma and investigating corruption, this never would have been a problem for Trump.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-06 09:26 AM |

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 10:58 AM | Reply

"bold is what was omitted"

That doesn't cover for this:
"Had it just been about Burisma and investigating corruption, this never would have been a problem for Trump."

Your premise is laughable, and hinges on Trump actually caring about corruption.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 11:06 AM | Reply

Your premise is laughable, and hinges on Trump actually caring about corruption.

#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

My premise is that Trump is too much of a moron to use the subtlety necessary to give him an out when he's doing something underhanded.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 11:40 AM | Reply

My point is, had he been more vague he could have both gotten his point across with Ukraine and given himself deniability.

He brought this mess on himself.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 11:41 AM | Reply

had he been more vague he could have both gotten his point across with Ukraine and given himself deniability.

Like i said in 47 - if his "point got across" to Zelenskyy it would have also gotten across to anyone else listening to the call. How do you think he could have worded this to avoid responsibility?

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 11:44 AM | Reply

#55 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You think how he worded it is the problem? He has his supporters screaming (and making tee-shirts with) "Read the Transcript". He has enough deniability for conservatives.

What he can't control is people like Sondland who straight up told a Ukraine representative "Yeah... this is a quid pro quo, and it is for the things that Trump needs to help get re-elected."

And, maybe conservatives ARE dumb enough that they think you have to put a bullhorn in someone's ear and say "I will give you X if you do Y. THIS IS A BRIBE!" for it to actually be a bribe. But anyone with two braincells to rub together can put the context together and see that the transcript indicates it was probably a quid pro quo. You just need to follow up with an investigation to make sure it was (why was the aid withheld, what was the timing on its release, what else were the Ukrainians told and when).

Considering that Trump and company STILL have refused to even give a reason why the aid was held up is pretty telling to me. If they had a good reason, they would have said it. The only reason that I can think of why they haven't just told a lie about it is that they know when the OMB is eventually forced to testify it will be obvious that it was delayed to put pressure on the Ukraine over the investigation "favors".

#57 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-06 11:52 AM | Reply

I'm still trying to figure out if Jeff thinks it's wrong for an American president to use our tax dollars as leverage to solicit dubious campaign assistance from a foreign government. So far it appears his only beef was with how transparent and hamhanded the administration was in carrying out its extortion scheme.

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 11:55 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"My premise is that Trump is too much of a moron"

Well if that's not a reason to vote for his enablers, I can't think of a one.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 12:10 PM | Reply

Rand can crap in one hand and demand in the other, and see which hand fills up first.

#60 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-11-06 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Well if that's not a reason to vote for his enablers, I can't think of a one.

#59 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Given that Republicans, on the whole, deliver more policies that I prefer than Democrats, why would I vote for Democrats?

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 12:31 PM | Reply

I'm still trying to figure out if Jeff thinks it's wrong for an American president to use our tax dollars as leverage to solicit dubious campaign assistance from a foreign government. So far it appears his only beef was with how transparent and hamhanded the administration was in carrying out its extortion scheme.

#58 | POSTED BY JOE

Yes, it's wrong. I apologize if I was lacking clarity on that.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 12:32 PM | Reply

How do you think he could have worded this to avoid responsibility?

#56 | POSTED BY JOE

I said deniability. Of course he's responsible for what he said.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 12:33 PM | Reply

Yes, it's wrong, but not enough to impeach.
#62 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-06 12:57 PM | Reply

Donald Trump Jr has released the name of the alleged Whistleblower along with his picture.

#65 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-11-06 12:59 PM | Reply

Considering that Trump and company STILL have refused to even give a reason why the aid was held up is pretty telling to me. If they had a good reason, they would have said it. The only reason that I can think of why they haven't just told a lie about it is that they know when the OMB is eventually forced to testify it will be obvious that it was delayed to put pressure on the Ukraine over the investigation "favors".

#57 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-11-06 11:52 AM | FLAG:

Said it before, Trump doesn't like to just hand over tax payer money to foreign governments especially ones that have had a history of corruption unless he thinks they have cleaned up their act. He campaigned on it. If he held it up like you and Danforth say because he had to have the investigation than you would be wrong. He gave them the money and the investigation did not happen.

#66 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-06 01:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#65 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

With Sondland's testimony, whistle blower's testimony simply corroborates the issue, no longer necessary as central factor.

Would you agree?

#67 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-06 01:06 PM | Reply

He gave them the money and the investigation did not happen.
#66 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

The timing of which makes the issue even more significant.

#68 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-06 01:08 PM | Reply

"Given that Republicans, on the whole, deliver more policies that I prefer than Democrats, why would I vote for Democrats?"

Because Republicans are criminals, and you're a firm believer in respecting law and order.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-06 01:11 PM | Reply

The call was perfect.
Trump might've mentioned Biden, but he was going after corruption.
It would only be a quid pro quo if they withheld the money.
Well, they withheld the money, but eventually gave it to them.
Money released 2 days after the WB is just a coincidence.
Quid Pro Quos happen all the time in foreign policy.
Okay, Okay! It was a Quid Pro Quo. Get over it!

Who says Republicans don't believe in evolution?

Yes, it's wrong, but not enough to impeach a Republican.
~Update to Snoofy's FTFY

#70 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 01:11 PM | Reply

"Because Republicans are criminals"

Yeah, but they're his criminals.

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 01:12 PM | Reply

"Donald Trump Jr has released the name of the alleged Whistleblower along with his picture."

What's the over/under on time before retaliation?

And are there any Republicans who are going to go on record to pretend identification, in this case, will NOT knowingly equal retaliation?

Before you answer, basement-pizza-parlor-shooter-guy wants to talk to you.

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 01:16 PM | Reply

He gave them the money and the investigation did not happen.

#66 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

He only gave them the money AFTER he would have found out about the whistleblower report. Looks to me like he knew he got caught, so released the money so that gullible idiots would say it proves he was not engaging in a quid pro quo.

If that is not the case, please explain why he released it. It is CLEAR that he was withholding it. To clarify, my explanation for the facts of the case are that he was withholding aid from Ukraine to get them to start "investigations" for his personal benefit, but once the White House found out about the whistleblower report they went ahead and released the aid before it blew up into a public scandal. Your explanation is that Ukraine was corrupt, so Trump withheld aid. And then Ukraine did what that made them suddenly to have "cleaned up their act" such that Trump released aid on September 11? Because I have heard no such explanation. Or, are you going to claim that they were STILL just as corrupt and that Trump gave them money anyway (supposedly knowing it would be used incorrectly)? That he caved like a wet newspaper, sorta like he has done in all his other "negotiations"?

Finally, Ukraine said at the beginning of October that they were "reviewing the investigation into Burisma", just as Trump had requested of them.

www.businessinsider.com

So, the investigation DID happen and Trump only gave them the money when he HAD to (based upon knowing his quid pro quo was about to go public).

Come on. I have given you MY explanation of what happened that fits the facts. I would love to hear YOU explanation.

And please use the actual facts this time, not just regurgitate some of the Kool-aid that you have been guzzling.

#73 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-06 01:24 PM | Reply

Because Republicans are criminals, and you're a firm believer in respecting law and order.

#69 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

He is a conservative. When have conservatives EVER been a "firm believer in respecting law and order." This is the party of Nixon we are talking about.

And I don't know where you think you are going to get with "Because Republicans are criminals". For conservatives nowadays, that seems to be a feature, not a bug.

As I have said before, EVERYONE (even Jeff) agrees that Republican politicians are scum. The only disagreement between liberals and conservatives about the integrity of politicians is how much integrity liberal politicians have.

#74 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-06 01:29 PM | Reply

Donald Trump Jr has released the name of the alleged Whistleblower along with his picture

The obvious intent of this "name the WB" campaign (aside from misdirection) is to intimidate others from coming forward for fear of being dragged through the mud (or worse at the hands of some lunatic Trumper).

One thing is certain, our WB statutes need to be strengthened to impose duties of confidentiality upon more than just the IG.

#75 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 01:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"One thing is certain, our WB statutes need to be strengthened to impose duties of confidentiality upon more than just the IG."

Exactly.

Trump has exposed A LOT of flaws, particularly when the head of the Justice Department is the co-conspirator.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 01:37 PM | Reply

Said it before, Trump doesn't like to just hand over tax payer money to foreign governments especially ones that have had a history of corruption unless he thinks they have cleaned up their act.

The problem with that opinion is facts. The agency delegated by Congress to make that determination, the DOD, had already had certified in May that the "Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability." apps.npr.org

#77 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-06 03:01 PM | Reply

Said it before, Trump doesn't like to just hand over tax payer money to foreign governments especially ones that have had a history of corruption unless he thinks they have cleaned up their act.

The problem with that opinion is facts. The agency delegated by Congress to make that determination, the DOD, had already had certified in May that the "Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability." apps.npr.org

#78 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-06 03:01 PM | Reply

Rand Paul is so wrong.

Rand Paul should resign.

That is unAmerican.

Or is it now uniquely American to beak the intent of and defy the will of Congress?

The will of Congress and the American People is that we protect whistleblowers from scum like Trump and from hateful cowards like Rand Paul. If he Really believed what he was saying then he would out the whistleblower himself.


#79 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-06 03:34 PM | Reply

So, this is what Rand Paul actually said, ""We also now know the name of the whistleblower. The whistleblower needs to come forward as a material witness because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was getting money from corrupt oligarchs,"

If the Senate were to open an investigation into Hunter Biden's dealings, then yes, this might be appropriate.

Until that actually happens, the WB deserves to remain anonymous.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 03:39 PM | Reply

particularly when the head of the Justice Department is the co-conspirator.

#76 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Co-conspirator to what?

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 03:40 PM | Reply

So, this is what Rand Paul actually said

For someone who likes to post blockquotes with bold "missing" terms and accuse others of not providing the full picture, you conveniently ended your quote of Paul just before he said "I say to the media tonight, do your job, and print his name."

#82 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Everyone knows who it is except you dolts who couldn't connect 3 dots.
And now you're screwed. Enjoy, girls!

#83 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:03 PM | Reply

Maybe you big thinkers can lock up Breitbart

#84 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:04 PM | Reply

Everyone knows who it is...

Does Rand Paul?

#85 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-06 04:08 PM | Reply

Eric Ciaramella? Man! He's a dandy!

#86 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:08 PM | Reply

Clown, don't tell me you didn't know who Pencil Neck was coaching. You're not JPW stupid, are you?

#87 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Was he Obama's Pajama Boy? Bwahaha!!!

#88 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:11 PM | Reply

Wisgod's here. That means it's a bad day for trump so wisgod to the rescue, spraying pathetic republican talking points as if they're the truth and declaring victory where none exists.

#89 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-06 04:12 PM | Reply

Tell me wis, why does it matter who the whistleblower is?

His claims have been corroborated by several others.

The bank was being robbed. The robbers are screaming about "well who called the cops?! That's the REAL story!"

#90 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-06 04:13 PM | Reply

Co-conspirator to what?

#81 | Posted by JeffJ

To the cover up. He tried to bury the whistleblower report. Are you actually that ignorant of events or just pretending?

#91 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-06 04:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Look at motives, stupid. Or didn't you learn from Ballsy-Ford? Abortion made her lie like as she admitted

#92 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:15 PM | Reply

You're not JPW stupid, are you?

#87 | POSTED BY WISGOD

LOL what a pathetic, -------- tool.

#93 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-06 04:15 PM | Reply

Speaks is here so he'll have to police truth and backfill it with MSM talking points. How you manage to figure how to open a door is mind boggling

#94 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:17 PM | Reply

-------- tool? Great debate. Go find someone to push your stool in

#95 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:19 PM | Reply

Clown, don't tell me you didn't know

The question is, does Rand Paul know, and why does he want the name published?

#96 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-06 04:19 PM | Reply

It was published. Google and type Whistleblower. Keep the change 3 days late

#97 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:21 PM | Reply

"Co-conspirator to what?"

Paying off a porn star. Defrauding banks. Do I really have to go on?

#98 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 04:23 PM | Reply

Maybe Eric can be charged like those that lied about the FISA ----. This is going to teach you chumps a lesson

#99 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The WB laws do not exonerate anyone of espionage. You can't commit a crime to gather information and then use the WB laws as a shield.

Anyway, anyone claiming who is tge WB requires someone else confirming it.

So far, no one has. I guess confirming would be disclosing.

#100 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-06 04:28 PM | Reply

Paying off a porn star. Defrauding banks. Do I really have to go on?

#98 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

To the cover up. He tried to bury the whistleblower report. Are you actually that ignorant of events or just pretending?

#91 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY A

William Barr did those things?

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-06 04:29 PM | Reply

You think Sciff will? Or any Democrat? This was out there for a week. Breitbart did

#102 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:32 PM | Reply

-------- tool? Great debate. Go find someone to push your stool in

#95 | POSTED BY WISGOD

Another completely self-unaware righty schitheap.

#103 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-06 04:32 PM | Reply

They brought up his name in the closed door hearings for Christ sakes

#104 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:33 PM | Reply

Unaware. You are one stupid partisan hack, little man

#105 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 04:35 PM | Reply

"If (Rand Paul) Really believed what he was saying then he would out the whistleblower himself."

Damn straight. But Rand's a coward's coward, so he'll just egg others on.

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 04:48 PM | Reply

"Rand's a coward's coward"

Let's not forget: Rand Paul thought using guns to go after government tyranny was just fine, until someone with a gun decided Rand was part of the tyrannical government.

#107 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 04:49 PM | Reply

"William Barr did those things?"

No, William Barr's boss.

#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 04:51 PM | Reply

What did Rand do to bruise you again? Words? Ouch!

#109 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 05:03 PM | Reply

Rand Paul (R-Moscow) isn't tall enough to bruise a grown man above the kneecaps.

#110 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 05:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

We all know you're tall, right? What a stupid post.

#111 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 05:23 PM | Reply

Look at motives, stupid. Or didn't you learn from Ballsy-Ford? Abortion made her lie like as she admitted

#92 | Posted by wisgod

If it was the whistleblower's word against trump's then looking at motives would make sense.

But the moment his report was corroborated by others, his motives become irrelevant. He could be the biggest trump hater in the world, but the FACTS he exposed have been confirmed as REAL, stupid.

Did the whistleblower write the transcript and get everyone to lie to confirm his story? Is he a puppetmaster controlling all the witnesses? That would be the ONLY reason to care about who the whistleblower is, and you're probably dumb enough to buy that it's happening.

#112 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-06 05:34 PM | Reply

#111 Imagine being this much of a ---- that you can't even let a rand paul height joke go without some aggressive response.

#113 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 05:36 PM | Reply

William Barr did those things?

#101 | Posted by JeffJ

"In August, Justice Department officials decided that rather than turn the whistleblower complaint over to Congress, department lawyers would assess the allegations against Trump, including evidence that the president had broken campaign finance law. After what news reports described as a cursory review, the department declined to launch a criminal investigation, finding that Trump had not asked for a "thing of value." This was a stretch; campaign finance experts generally agree that opposition research damaging to an opponent, which campaigns can pay a lot of money for, is clearly valuable. The FEC also considers it a "thing of value." Nevertheless, the department lawyers declared the matter case closed."

#114 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-06 05:37 PM | Reply

If they trace him all the way back to the Steele Dossier, what do you think is going to happen to your house of cards? Keep playing stupid. It's your strong suit.

#115 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 05:38 PM | Reply

Sorry Joe. Rub some Ben Gay on yourself and send me the invoice.

#116 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 05:39 PM | Reply

BTW, Joe. You sure have changed over the years. Did you marry a lib who wears you old pants?

#117 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 05:47 PM | Reply

If they trace him all the way back to the Steele Dossier, what do you think is going to happen to your house of cards? Keep playing stupid. It's your strong suit.

#115 | Posted by wisgod

You're the one who has to make ridiculous conspiracy theories in order to pretend trump is not a crook.

Here's a much simpler theory: Trump is a crook. That requires no grand conspiracies.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain.

#118 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-06 06:16 PM | Reply

If they trace him all the way back to the Steele Dossier, what do you think is going to happen to your house of cards? Keep playing stupid. It's your strong suit.

#115 | Posted by wisgod

They could trace him all the way back to the grassy knoll. It wouldnt change the fact that his story has been corroborated and trump was trying to get a foreign country to announce an investigation of his political rival.

#119 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-06 06:17 PM | Reply

So the Senate will back up your --------, Perry Mason? No, it will prove what your party has done for 3 years and you'll be back to crying how he won again after your food fight. Losers should know their limitations

#120 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 06:32 PM | Reply

You -------- should get out and sell Medicare for all instead of acting like ugly girls who didn't get invited to a prom. That's the winning message according to Pelosi

#121 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 06:36 PM | Reply

So the Senate will back up your --------, Perry Mason? No, it will prove what your party has done for 3 years and you'll be back to crying how he won again after your food fight. Losers should know their limitations

#120 | Posted by wisgod

No the senate will prove what everyone with a brain knows - that the entire republican party is a corrupt cult protecting a criminal con man.

Are you stupid enough to think that an acquittal in the senate will actually prove trump did nothing wrong. As if we needed further proof how stupid you are.

#122 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-06 06:48 PM | Reply

How does anyone tie 2020 interference to what an acting VP and his son did? You mutts couldn't defend a spit on a sidewalk

#123 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 06:51 PM | Reply

We? Christ don't lump half the country into your argument. You get dumber by the minute.

#124 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 06:53 PM | Reply

"How does anyone tie 2020 interference to what an acting VP and his son did?"

There's three things, really.
There's the quid, the pro, and the quo.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-06 06:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You -------- should get out and sell Medicare for all instead of acting like ugly girls who didn't get invited to a prom. That's the winning message according to Pelosi

#121 | Posted by wisgod

Seriously, how old are you?

Are you the vapid 20 something you seem to be?

Or the 40 something manchild who still finds it hilarious to give people a wet willy?

#126 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-06 07:06 PM | Reply

Yeah, that will work from opinions. I guess if it's your only hope to defeat someone, play that hand. Worked for the last Supreme Court nomination

#127 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 07:08 PM | Reply

Old enough to know a troll when I see one, ---- head. Can't argue but either could the Beaver when Ward caught him

#128 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-11-06 07:10 PM | Reply

Old enough to know a troll when I see one, ---- head.

Is today projection day in the Wisgod double wide?

#129 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-06 07:13 PM | Reply

How does anyone tie 2020 interference to what an acting VP and his son did? You mutts couldn't defend a spit on a sidewalk

#123 | Posted by wisgod

Oh just the part about demanding a foreign leader publicly announce an investigation into a 2020 candidate thats all.

Christ you're too stupid to even indicate who you're responding to. It's easy - COPY then PASTE the comment you're replying to.

Everyone else can easily manage the simple things that are beyond your capability. Morons love trump.

#130 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-06 07:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm not the first to point this out, but it's worth noting that Trump literally never utters the word "corruption" in his phone call with Zelensky.

He does say "Biden" three times.

#131 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-06 07:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Corruption has too many syllables.

#132 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-11-06 11:03 PM | Reply

Corruption has too many syllables.

POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2019-11-06 11:03 PM | REPLY

Sin has just one.

#133 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-06 11:27 PM | Reply

don jr has "outed" the alleged whistleblower that breitbart identified. I say alleged, because it might be the wrong person, we don't know.

yall know there's a LAW against outing whistleblowers, right? This is another impeachable offense.

#134 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-11-07 12:04 AM | Reply

yall know there's a LAW against outing whistleblowers, right? This is another impeachable offense.

#134 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

The whistleblower was outed by Paul Sperry at RealclearInvestigations. He was outed by an intrepid reporter.

This is anything but a 1st Amendment violation.

#135 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 12:35 AM | Reply

It's really funny to me how certain lefties cheered when certain people were unmasked and their identity was leaked to the public but this, this is beyond the pale.

#136 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 12:39 AM | Reply

This is another impeachable offense.

#134 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

A Republican winning any election is an impeachable offense to you tools.

#137 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 12:40 AM | Reply

The whistleblower was outed by Paul Sperry at RealclearInvestigations. He was outed by an intrepid reporter.

This is anything but a 1st Amendment violation.

#135 | Posted by JeffJ

And who do you think his source was for that? Someone in the WH blabbed.

Of course, Don Jr, dikk that he is and the son of a dikk, also Tweeted it out.

#138 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-11-07 12:53 AM | Reply

#138 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

www.realclearinvestigations.com

Based upon the reporting it looks like it was an open secret. The linked article was penned a week ago.

#139 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 01:01 AM | Reply

A Republican winning any election is an impeachable offense to you tools.

#137 | Posted by JeffJ

That comment was beneath your intelligence.

#140 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-11-07 01:04 AM | Reply

That comment was beneath your intelligence.

#140 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Perhaps. It does have context though.

Even before Trump was sworn in we had serious suggestions, not from basement warriors, but from prominent lefties, that the Electors should overthrow the EC vote tally - that Trump should be removed via the 25th Amendment - that the Emoluments Clause should be invoked to remove him (history be damned in terms of how that has been applied), then Comey violating FBI rules (take it up with the IG Report) to precipitate the Mueller invesitgation, which turned up bupkis as it pertained to conspiring with Russia to tilt the election....etc...

Some of that I can write off as 'because Trump', but not all of it - and my list was far from all inclusive.

#141 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 01:17 AM | Reply

"but from prominent lefties, that the Electors should overthrow the EC vote tally"

Um, that's the reason Electors exist. To put a human failsafe into the system.

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 03:55 AM | Reply

"that the Emoluments Clause should be invoked to remove him"

You would think that, if it were Obama profiting from his Presidency.

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 03:56 AM | Reply

"It's really funny to me how certain lefties cheered when certain people were unmasked and their identity was leaked to the public but this, this is beyond the pale."

Since when are Second Amendment Remedies for an Enemy of The State beyond the pale, JeffJ?

When did that happen?

#144 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 03:58 AM | Reply

"which turned up bupkis as it pertained to conspiring with Russia to tilt the election....etc..."

That's not even true at all. What actually happened is the Justice Dept. has a memo, written by who I can't say right now, but it says that the President can't be charged with a crime. Mueller informed about "criminal" acts of the President and his administration but was prevented from charging the President. Anyone arguing today that their was no encouragement or even assistance to the Russians meddling in our elections is just a liar. Manafort delivered polling data to a Russian oligarch, if that isn't collusion then I am the Queen of England.

#145 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-07 06:42 AM | Reply

I guess you are the Queen of England, Danni.

This Ukraine/Trump mess is real. Russiagate turned out to be a hoax.

#146 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 09:20 AM | Reply

A hoax?

You sound just like Pinch.

A hoax that has people in jail, about to be sentenced, is filled with damning statements about Russia's interference in our Elections, and tons more - but somehow it's a "hoax."

What a ridiculous statement. Earth II must be low on oxygen.

#147 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-07 09:26 AM | Reply

#146

The "Trump/Ukraine Mess" is a variation on what Trump did with Russia earlier.

Why do you admire Trump, JEFF?

#148 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-07 09:26 AM | Reply

#147

There's something about the Trump regime people like JEFF have an enormous attraction to.

None of them have been honest about what that attraction is.

#149 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-07 09:29 AM | Reply

"Russiagate turned out to be a hoax"

let's not forget this is the very same asshat that droned on for 8 years about a birth certificate conspiracy
a birth certificate that conveniently became authentic the moment it was no longer politically expedient to say otherwise

#150 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-11-07 09:29 AM | Reply

Ukraine and Trump is wholly Russia involved.
Russia planted the idea that Ukraine had "the server" with Manafort.
Manafort drove that with Trump.
It's all part of what Mueller's report got into.
And we have Manafort lying, lying, lying about it all - and Mueller saying he couldn't get to the truth because of it,.

Yet Jeff, Pinch and left and right-wing useful idiots yell out "Russia is a hoax!"

Help us all.

#151 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-07 09:30 AM | Reply

Speaking of Hoax's
When will OBAMA finally naturalize all the illegals?

#152 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-11-07 09:32 AM | Reply

Is JEFF willing to concede that Trump is willing to and intends to cheat to win in 2020?

That would be the meaning of the "Trump/Ukraine Mess".

#153 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-07 09:32 AM | Reply

I've been forthright in explaining why some people love Donald Trump, no matter what he does.

One-man rule captures the imagination of a a certain kind of personality. These personalities have no essential sympathy for democracy.

Feel free to jump in, JEFF.

#154 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-07 09:39 AM | Reply

Yav,

Here is the Mueller report, by the numbers:
- 675: The number of days from when Mueller was appointed to the day he turned in his report to Barr.

- 34: people indicted as a result of Mueller's investigation, including Russian nationals and several former Trump aides and advisors.

- 19: lawyers who were employed by the special counsel's office, according to a letter Barr sent to Congress on Sunday.

- About 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other staff that assisted with the investigation.

- More than 2,800 subpoenas issued by the Special Counsel's office, that's an average of at least four per day.

- Nearly 500 search warrants executed.

- More than 230 orders for communication records.

- Nearly 50 authorized orders for the use of pen registers, a tool that lets the government know who someone is communicating with and when, but not what they said.

- 13 evidence requests to foreign governments

- 500 witnesses interviewed

- $25 million in posted costs as of February

Mueller report:Investigation found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia


Yes, it ended up being a hoax. To be fair, until I see otherwise, I am going with that there was enough there to warrant the Mueller investigation. That the Durham investigation has been elevated to a criminal probe does raise my eyebrows though.

#155 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 09:42 AM | Reply

#155

It was expected that the dictator would attempt to strike back with something like the Durham thing.

Does JEFF see the connection between Durham and Ukraine?

#156 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-07 09:53 AM | Reply

So by "hoax" you mean you can ignore everything else it found, ignore the obstruction of justice, and rest everything on whether Mueller could prove (with Manafort's continued lies) that Trump directly conspired with Russia as if that was the only point or the Muller report?

There were two tasks:
1) Did Russia seek to and interfere with our Elections
2) Did the Trump campaign knowingly conspire with Russia to influence the election.

The first point was overwhelmingly yes, that Russia "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" in direct violation of US law.
The second point was unprovable and resulted in the second half of the report, but cleared the Trump campaign of "knowingly" working with Russians. The report did document contacts with Russians and the IRA.

Calling it a "hoax" is ridiculous, a disservice to Mueller and to all thinking humans.

#157 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-07 09:54 AM | Reply

To answer my own question, I'm sure not. If he can't bring himself to see the obvious about Trump cheating for 2020 there's not much hope for him.

#158 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-07 09:56 AM | Reply

"Mueller report:Investigation found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia"

Not for lack of trying.

#159 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 10:02 AM | Reply

I don't dismiss the attempts at obstruction (same thing as actual obstruction under the law).

I listed the Mueller report by the numbers. It was a political colonoscopy. Yet, in spite of all of those resources poured in, in spite of ALL of the electronic surveillance of members of the Trump campaign, no evidence that Trump or anybody tied to his team conspired with Russia. It was a story that dominated the news cycle for over 2 years and at the end of the day it came up empty.

Trump has always been a grifter and I think it will ultimately bring him down. Having said that, Mueller did has damnedest to find evidence that Trump's team conspired with Russia and he came up empty. That comes straight from his report.

#160 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 10:04 AM | Reply

It's really funny to me how certain lefties cheered when certain people were unmasked and their identity was leaked to the public but this, this is beyond the pale.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that every single person on earth deserves anonymity in every circumstance no matter what. It isn't even a very nuanced take to say that a WB against the Trump administration (a guy who has a history of attacking people, inciting violence, etc) deserves some degree of anonymity. No, it's not technically a legal requirement (as I understand it the law requires the IG to keep the WB anonymous, and there are more vague theories of retaliation that would need to be pursued against anyone else), but any decent person would agree that the balance between the value of knowing this person's identity versus the danger he faces if revealed tips in favor of anonymity. Unfortunately that excludes virtually all Trumpers.

#161 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 10:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

no evidence that Trump or anybody tied to his team conspired with Russia

Saying there is not enough evidence to support a criminal charge is not the same thing as saying there is "no" evidence. The report is clear that the Trump administration requested campaign assistance from Russia, shared polling data with Russia, knew Russia committed computer crimes against American citizens, and gleefully accepted the fruits of those crimes with full knowledge of their origin. Whether that is sufficient to support one particular criminal charge is, again, not equivalent to a statement that no evidence whatsoever existed. And the report also makes clear that additional evidence was hidden, destroyed, that agents were lied to, and that all of this materially impeded their investigation.

Did you actually read the report? I recall you claiming to have done so, but to date you continue spouting inaccurate talking points about it. If you actually read the report, you have failed to understand it or retain the information that it conveys.

#162 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 10:12 AM | Reply

"in spite of ALL of the electronic surveillance of members of the Trump campaign, no evidence that Trump or anybody tied to his team conspired with Russia."

They just lied to you about ongoing meetings with Russia, dozens of times. And they expected you to eat up the lies, and not make a peep.

Why do you put up with being treated like a chump? Team Trump thought you didn't deserve the truth, and still does.

#163 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 10:12 AM | Reply

"repeat, Trump did not withhold taxpayer money. "

You lie. Repeat, YOU LIE.

#164 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 10:14 AM | Reply

It's really funny to me how certain lefties cheered when certain people were unmasked and their identity was leaked to the public but this, this is beyond the pale.

Like...

Spy from Moscow.
Cia Chief from Iran.

#165 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-07 10:14 AM | Reply

You lie. Repeat, YOU LIE.
#164 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Lol Danforth calling other people liars.

ProjectionDan

#166 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-07 10:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Lol Danforth calling other people liars."

Mackris proves the old canard: throw a rock at a pack of dogs, and the one who yelps is the one who got hit.

The only time Mackris has ever told the truth is when he admitted he's all in for the demise of America, and is just hanging around for more tax cuts.

#167 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 10:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Projection"

Just to see if your IQ is room temperature or above...

...Fishpaw stated Trump did not withhold the money. Testimony came out yesterday Trump withheld the money. And it's known the money was released 2 days after the WB complaint became public.

So when Fishpaw made that erroneous claim...was he LYING, or was he NOT LYING? You know...since you're so concerned with the truth.

This should be fun....

#168 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 10:20 AM | Reply

The Mueller report turned up no evidence of conspiracy with Russia, Joe/Danforth.

None.

Your collective failure to accept that conclusion is....interesting.

#169 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 10:22 AM | Reply

#169

Exactly what Mueller found has been repeated to you on this thread. Which part of it are you denying? The part where Trump gleefully accepted Russian assistance?

#170 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-07 10:28 AM | Reply

"The Mueller report turned up no evidence of conspiracy with Russia, Joe/Danforth."

They turned up attempts. Did you miss Junior's attempts to get dirt? Did you miss the part where the Trump Tower participants weren't charged because Mueller concluded they were too stupid to know they were breaking the law?

"Your collective failure to accept that conclusion is....interesting"

When this started, the idea of Team Trump lying all the time about contacts with Russia was unthinkable, and certainly would've been unplalatable had you known it at the time. Now, you accept that lying as comfort. You realize, don't you: that's the behavior of a battered spouse. Why do you put up with someone who lies to you, and expects you to swallow those lies for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?

#171 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 10:28 AM | Reply

Did "grifter" Trump accept help getting elected from the Russians, JEFF?

#172 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-07 10:29 AM | Reply

Repeating the same lie over and over and over doesn't make it any more true, but your emulation of the fat------------- "president" is noted.

Your failure to address literally any point advanced in #162 is...very uninteresting and predictable.

#173 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 10:29 AM | Reply

Hey Iran...if you're listening, I sure wish someone would hack Saudi Arabia and let us know about Jared's real estate dealings.
~Elizabeth Warren

No problem there, right Jeff?

#174 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 10:29 AM | Reply

while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

I feel like I'm going to catch rabies if I spend too much more time on this thread.

#175 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 10:33 AM | Reply

You dance too well to get bitten, JEFF.

#176 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-07 10:36 AM | Reply

What you described in #162 is tame compared to paying a British national to solicit political dirt from Russians, Joe.

That unverified oppo research was used in FISA applications is potentially problematic.

#177 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 10:36 AM | Reply

#176 I get my dance moves from Sean Spicer, Zed.

#178 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 10:37 AM | Reply

" compared to paying a British national to solicit political dirt from Russians"

Then Republicans should be ashamed, right?

"That unverified oppo research was used in FISA applications is potentially problematic."

You had no right to uncover my wrongs!

#179 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 10:38 AM | Reply

#177

You advance Russian memes, JEFF.

#180 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-07 10:38 AM | Reply

Wow Jeff.

You've lost your mind.

To the extent it ever existed. Maybe i was just too stupid to realize you've always been this way.

#181 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 10:41 AM | Reply

"That unverified oppo research was used in FISA applications is potentially problematic."
-----
You had no right to uncover my wrongs!

#179 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

It will be very interesting to see if you still say that if the IG report shows those warrants were obtained illegally. For the record, my bet is they were properly obtained.

#182 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 10:42 AM | Reply

Maybe i was just too stupid...

#181 | POSTED BY JOE

Works for me!

:-)

#183 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 10:43 AM | Reply

"For the record, my bet is they were properly obtained."

But you're going to seed doubt all the way.

You never answered: why is a President lying to you, okay with you?

"It will be very interesting to see if you still say that if the IG report shows those warrants were obtained illegally."

Will that change the underlying actions uncovered, or not?

#184 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 10:47 AM | Reply

Will that change the underlying actions uncovered, or not?

#184 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Carter Page didn't break any laws. If it turns out the FISA warrants to survey him were illegally obtained it will be a huge deal.

Again, until I see otherwise my take is those warrants were properly obtained.

The reason I have some doubts is that around the time the IG report was submitted to the DOJ the Durham probe was elevated to a criminal investigation.

#185 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 10:52 AM | Reply

Adding to my doubt is all of the weird stuff going on with the Michael Flynn trial.

#186 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 10:53 AM | Reply

"If it turns out the FISA warrants to survey him were illegally obtained it will be a huge deal."

Okay...I'll ask again: Will that change the underlying actions uncovered, or not?

In addition, again: Why do you allow yourself to be lied to constantly, and treated like a battered spouse?

#187 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 11:00 AM | Reply

Okay...I'll ask again: Will that change the underlying actions uncovered, or not?

If Page was illegally spied on?

Yes, the process matters.

Do you support illegal surveillance of citizens? Does the ante become upped if the surveillance is conducted by one political party against a political rival?

These questions are obviously hypothetical, but nonetheless germane to our conversation at the moment.

#188 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 11:11 AM | Reply

"Trump has always been a grifter and I think it will ultimately bring him down. Having said that, Mueller did has damnedest to find evidence that Trump's team conspired with Russia and he came up empty."

So what JeffJ is saying is:
When it comes to Russia, Trump is not a grifter. He's clean. Fully Exonerated.

#189 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 12:33 PM | Reply

"If Page was illegally spied on?"

What changes if Page was illegally spied on, JeffJ?

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 12:34 PM | Reply

"Carter Page didn't break any laws. If it turns out the FISA warrants to survey him were illegally obtained it will be a huge deal."

What is "a huge deal," JeffJ?

Nobody was ever charged with a huge deal.

So what are you saying?

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 12:36 PM | Reply

It's really funny to me how certain lefties cheered when certain people were unmasked and their identity was leaked to the public but this, this is beyond the pale.

#136 | Posted by JeffJ

As if unmasking criminals is equal to unmaking whistleblowers.

But false equivalency is all you have in your cult anymore.

#192 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-07 12:37 PM | Reply

Carter Page didn't break any laws. If it turns out the FISA warrants to survey him were illegally obtained it will be a huge deal.

Do you think a person needs to be found to have broken laws in order for warrants on that person to be legal?

If your answer is no, then what relevance does your statement that "Carter Page didn't break any laws" have to the conversation?

Your obsession with the Page FISA warrants is embarrassing. Trump (in an unprecedented move) declassified the warrant applications. They have been examined extensively. The only people making noise about them are conspiracy theorists. That apparently includes you.

#193 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 12:44 PM | Reply

What changes if Page was illegally spied on, JeffJ?

#190 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Do you really not know the answer to that question?

So what are you saying?

#191 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I was speaking hypothetically.

As if unmasking criminals is equal to unmaking whistleblowers....

#192 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

What crime was Carter Page convicted of, much less even charged with?

#194 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 12:47 PM | Reply

"What changes if Page was illegally spied on, JeffJ?
#190 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
Do you really not know the answer to that question?"

Do you?
???
I'm calling your Deplorable bluff, JeffJ.
I'm sure you think you're holding strong cards.
Show 'em.

#195 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 12:49 PM | Reply

Do you think a person needs to be found to have broken laws in order for warrants on that person to be legal?
If your answer is no, then what relevance does your statement that "Carter Page didn't break any laws" have to the conversation?
Your obsession with the Page FISA warrants is embarrassing. Trump (in an unprecedented move) declassified the warrant applications. They have been examined extensively. The only people making noise about them are conspiracy theorists. That apparently includes you.

#193 | POSTED BY JOE A

Um, yeah, sure....

Do you support illegal surveillance of citizens? Does the ante become upped if the surveillance is conducted by one political party against a political rival?
These questions are obviously hypothetical, but nonetheless germane to our conversation at the moment.

POSTED BY JEFFJ

Carter Page didn't break any laws. If it turns out the FISA warrants to survey him were illegally obtained it will be a huge deal.
Again, until I see otherwise my take is those warrants were properly obtained.
The reason I have some doubts is that around the time the IG report was submitted to the DOJ the Durham probe was elevated to a criminal investigation.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-07 10:52 AM

It will be very interesting to see if you still say that if the IG report shows those warrants were obtained illegally. For the record, my bet is they were properly obtained.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-07 10:42 AM |


Yeah, what I put in bold sounds real conspiratorial, Joe.

#196 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 12:52 PM | Reply

"For the record, my bet is they were properly obtained."

Oh I see.
You're just day-dreaming.
You shouldn't do that out loud.

#197 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 12:54 PM | Reply

Your disclaimers don't match your rhetoric regarding the FISA warrants, and everyone knows it.

#198 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 12:54 PM | Reply

"Do you support illegal surveillance of citizens? Does the ante become upped if the surveillance is conducted by one political party against a political rival?"

^
This is what Trump demamded from Ukraine on Hunter Biden.
Correct, JeffJ?

#199 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 12:56 PM | Reply

If i drone on and on for (literally) months what-if'ing about Trump being coprophagic, but occasionally sprinkle in a claim that i don't actually believe he eats his own turds (yet), any reasonable person would call me out on it.

#200 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 12:57 PM | Reply

Your disclaimers don't match your rhetoric regarding the FISA warrants, and everyone knows it.

#198 | POSTED BY JOE A

I put the disclaimers in for a reason.

If you want to be a dick and ignore them, have at it.

#201 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 01:05 PM | Reply

I put the disclaimers in for a reason.

Yep.

To give you plausible deniability when the theories you've been what-if'ing about for months are pointed out to be nonsense.

#202 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 01:08 PM | Reply

No. Here's the reason: During the Obama presidency I was convinced that the IRS deliberately targeted conservative 503 groups at the behest of the Democratic Party. After a lengthy Senate investigation it turned out what actually happened was incompetence.

So, I've been more cautious since then. And, to drive the point home I watched all sorts of conspiracy theorists (some, namely yourself, persist in spite of Mueller saying no evidence of conspiracy with Russia), on a daily basis, proclaim that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians to illegally steal the 2016 election and Saint Mueller was going to prove it! Well, Volume I of his report was a dud and his forced testimony was an unmitigated disaster.

The lack of self-awareness on your part labeling anybody a conspiracy monger truly is astonishing.

#203 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 01:16 PM | Reply

"in spite of Mueller saying no evidence of conspiracy with Russia"

That's... not what Mueller really said, is it?

#204 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 01:21 PM | Reply

"I put the disclaimers in for a reason.

Yep.

To give you plausible deniability"

And when that doesn't work, he'll play his trump card, which is he was "just joking" the whole time. And then he'll abandon thread and pretend the whole thing never happened.

He's really good at pulling the wool over his own eyes.

He actually reminds me of the main chatacter in Memento, how he keeps repeating the same lies, day in and day out.

#205 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 01:26 PM | Reply

in spite of Mueller saying no evidence of conspiracy with Russia

Repeating that lie, over and over, will never make it true.

You're a liar.

#206 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 01:35 PM | Reply

JEFF

You're sounding like you're drunk on FoxNews koolaid, parroting their ridiculous talking points that fly in the face of known facts.

It's sad to witness. I feel like I should send you a box of crackers ...

#207 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-11-07 01:36 PM | Reply

What crime was Carter Page convicted of, much less even charged with?

#194 | Posted by JeffJ

Ah the old "what was he charged with?" dodge.

Irrelevant. He was deservingly under intelligence surveillance for potentially being a russian asset.
www.businessinsider.com
Over the course of his career in foreign policy, Page has not shied away from criticizing what he has described as US hypocrisy toward Russia. According to the Washington Post, Page has praised Putin as a better leader than former President Barack Obama.

"Washington and other Western powers have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change," Page said during a speech in Moscow in front of prominent Russian government officials.

Over the years, Page's dealings in Russia caught the attention of US government officials, who suspected that he may be working as an agent of Moscow. Intelligence officials knew of him as far back as 2013, well before he joined the Trump campaign.

During the 2016 election campaign, Trump announced that Page was one of his foreign policy advisers

...

Ever asked yourself how trump just HAPPENED to hire a bunch of russia lovers for his team jeffy? Or how he picked putin's favorite oil exec to run our foreign policy?

#208 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-07 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Trump was in cahoots with the Russians to illegally steal the 2016 election and Saint Mueller was going to prove it!"

Is Trump in cahoots with Putin, or not?

The lack of self-awareness on your part labeling anybody a conspiracy monger truly is astonishing.

Especially after being a die-hard Birther, and President of the Obama Made Lois Lerner Do It Fan Club.

#209 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 01:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Repeating that lie, over and over, will never make it true.
You're a liar.

#206 | POSTED BY JOE

#ReadtheReport

#210 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 01:42 PM | Reply

Irrelevant. He was deservingly under intelligence surveillance for potentially being a russian asset.

I've consistently said that unless I see otherwise the FISA warrants that were obtained to spy on him were properly predicated.

#211 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 01:43 PM | Reply

"After a lengthy Senate investigation it turned out what actually happened was incompetence."

Yeah, after I corrected you by showing you the IG report.

Flagging was based on keywords, there were more left-leaning keywords than right-leaning keywords, and the reason more right-leaning groups got flagged was because more right-leaning groups applied.

#212 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 01:45 PM | Reply

From the report:

the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy

Read that as many times as necessary for it to sink in.

#213 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 01:46 PM | Reply

Yeah, after I corrected you by showing you the IG report...

#212 | POSTED BY DANFORTH A

I'm glad you did.

#214 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 01:47 PM | Reply

"ReadtheReport"

Especially the part where Junior was deemed too stupid to know meeting with Russians to get dirt on Hillary was against the law. Mmmm....good times.

#215 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-07 01:47 PM | Reply

So what? Our own intelligence services concluded Russia meddled in our 2016 election and Trump chose to believe Putin instead.

Don't you work for a news organization, JEFF? WTF is wrong with you?

#216 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-11-07 01:47 PM | Reply

#211 See #200.

Nobody has any reason to pay deference to your perfunctory qualifiers.

#217 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 01:48 PM | Reply

--#ReadtheReport

Meh. I'd rather read good, entertaining prose.

#ReadThePickwickPapers

#218 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-07 02:01 PM | Reply

I've consistently said that unless I see otherwise the FISA warrants that were obtained to spy on him were properly predicated.

#211 | Posted by JeffJ

I'm dying to hear your explanation for how trump ended up surrounded by so many putin lovers. You've never offered one.

#219 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-07 02:08 PM | Reply

Adding to my doubt is all of the weird stuff going on with the Michael Flynn trial.

What about the Stone trial? That's turning out to be one amazing trial - and Stone, his minions, and Trump are up to their eyeballs in Wikileaks and Russians.

#ReadtheReport

Is that like the Trump t-shirts saying "Read the transcript"?

#220 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-07 02:09 PM | Reply

Nobody has any reason to pay deference to your perfunctory qualifiers.

#217 | POSTED BY JOE

Of course not. They ruin your straw man.

#221 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 02:11 PM | Reply

What about the Stone trial?

I haven't seen much reporting about it.

Can you recommend a source that consistently covers it? I don't need a link, just a source.

#222 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 02:12 PM | Reply

One more time Jeff.

If i spend months ruminating over a conspiracy theory and advancing it in political debates, and occasionally sprinkle in a qualifier that "i don't really believe this (yet)," people will rightly label me a rube.

Keep on keepin' on.

#223 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 02:14 PM | Reply

"I've consistently said that unless I see otherwise the FISA warrants that were obtained to spy on him were properly predicated."

What you haven't said is what it would matter if the FISA warrants were improper.

What would it mean if the FISA warrants were improper, JeffJ?

#224 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 02:19 PM | Reply

#223 Occasionally?

Any time I mention it I am sure to add the qualifier.

#225 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 02:22 PM | Reply

"the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy"

Did Mueller get to see all the evidence, JeffJ?

It's a yes or no question.

And it's a question you won't answer.

#226 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 02:23 PM | Reply

Since JeffJ won't answer, here is the answer:

Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted or unsaved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete or declined.[6][7][8]However, the report stated that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion",[9][10][11]but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.

#227 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 02:23 PM | Reply

And it's a question you won't answer.

#226 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

See #155.

#228 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 02:24 PM | Reply

"Yes, it ended up being a hoax."
--JeffJ

Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted or unsaved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete or declined.
--Reality

#229 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-07 02:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Any time I mention it I am sure to add the qualifier.

Ok.

I'll start dabbling in a conspiracy theory that you're a pedo.

I'll make sure to add, each time, that i don't technically believe you are one, yet, but that if it came out that you were it would be very explosive.

You'd find that to be a good faith tactic. Right?

#230 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-07 02:36 PM | Reply

Go right ahead.

#231 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-07 02:41 PM | Reply

JeffJ is a pedo? Geez. Now we know...

#232 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-11-07 02:43 PM | Reply

"Does JEFF see the connection"

Jeffyj only sees the connections the National Review serves up to him in Crayola

#233 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-11-07 02:57 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort