Democrats don't want origins of Ukraine probe revealed, just as they didn't want Russia probe known

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
From the "Don't you dare look over there", files:
Democrats don't want public to know origins of Ukraine probe like they didn't want public to know origins of Russia probe

Why are House Democrats stonewalling questions about the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower?

Start by taking them at their word. Perhaps they really are concerned about the whistleblower's personal safety. They also know that, beyond a limited prohibition applying to the inspector general of the intelligence community, no law bars anyone, in politics, media, or anywhere else, from revealing the whistleblower's identity. So they worry.
...
Democrats do not want the public to know. And in that, their position is familiar to anyone who has watched Washington for the last two years: The Democrats' determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Ukraine investigation is strikingly similar to their determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.
...
Nunes' efforts eventually led to a Justice Department inspector general investigation whose results, expected in coming weeks, could further damage the Democratic Trump-Russia storyline. And then there is the ongoing criminal investigation led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.
...
In the Trump-Russia affair, the investigation was entrusted to a special counsel who ultimately could not establish that Schiff's and the Democrats' key allegation, a conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, ever actually occurred. Now, House Democrats are doing the Trump-Ukraine investigation themselves, making it easier to reach the conclusion they want.

But so far at least, the investigation seems to have established that Trump's alleged misconduct exists in the eye of the beholder. Some officials heard the Zelensky call as it happened and saw no wrongdoing. Vindman, on the other hand, saw wrongdoing and got in touch with an unknown number of people about it. After that, the story grew and grew. How did one man's impression turn into the impeachment probe of today?

And that is what Chairman Schiff does not want the nation to know
.
So ... How did one man's impression turn into an impeachment probe?
 

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
I am truly astonished that there are people who seriously are trying to make that point. (And I am not quite certain that all of them are serious in trying to make that point.)

So, let's say there is something happening. Anything. Somewhere. Doesn't matter what.

- Someone has the impression that this is fishy.
- They make a call to the relevant authorities.
- These authorities decide: Yes, that's indeed seems to be fishy. We need to investigate this.
- They do investigate, and come to the conclusion: this is fishy. We need to do something official about it.

So, can you spot the point where is stops to matter who the original "whistleblower" is or what his intentions are?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

Brian Mcnamee

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2017
2,308
1,294
64
usa
✟213,965.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
For those willing to invest a couple hours into a video Glen Beck put out a video a few days ago called Democratic Hydra in which he starts with the Ukraine and shows the involvement of the state department organizing and training revolutionaries to start spontaneous uprisings and change the leadership and constitutions of the nation. This plan is being implemented all across the world and is well documented that George Soros and other socialist have been funding these operations and much of the funding comes through your tax dollars. Trump cut off the funding to these groups in the Ukraine and the money still was appropriated. This is a good expose and as a prophecy student it matches the rise in the kingdom that will take over the world at the time of the tribulation. Worth looking up and spending the time to see the big picture. The whistle blower is exposed and the entire agenda in the Ukraine and globally.


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So ... How did one man's impression turn into an impeachment probe?
When his impression turned out to be correct.
I am truly astonished that there are people who seriously are trying to make that point. (And I am not quite certain that all of them are serious in trying to make that point.)

So, let's say there is something happening. Anything. Somewhere. Doesn't matter what.

- Someone has the impression that this is fishy.
- They make a call to the relevant authorities.
- These authorities decide: Yes, that's indeed seems to be fishy. We need to investigate this.
- They do investigate, and come to the conclusion: this is fishy. We need to do something official about it.

So, can you spot the point where is stops to matter who the original "whistleblower" is or what his intentions are?
- The fishiness is rotten at the head
- The head and its flunkies decry the whistleblower
- Investigating the whistleblower distracts from investigating the fishiness
- Any potential future whistleblowers learn that reporting fishiness will lead to a world of hurt
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
From the "Don't you dare look over there", files:
Democrats don't want public to know origins of Ukraine probe like they didn't want public to know origins of Russia probe

Why are House Democrats stonewalling questions about the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower?

Start by taking them at their word. Perhaps they really are concerned about the whistleblower's personal safety. They also know that, beyond a limited prohibition applying to the inspector general of the intelligence community, no law bars anyone, in politics, media, or anywhere else, from revealing the whistleblower's identity. So they worry.
...
Democrats do not want the public to know. And in that, their position is familiar to anyone who has watched Washington for the last two years: The Democrats' determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Ukraine investigation is strikingly similar to their determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.
...
Nunes' efforts eventually led to a Justice Department inspector general investigation whose results, expected in coming weeks, could further damage the Democratic Trump-Russia storyline. And then there is the ongoing criminal investigation led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.
...
In the Trump-Russia affair, the investigation was entrusted to a special counsel who ultimately could not establish that Schiff's and the Democrats' key allegation, a conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, ever actually occurred. Now, House Democrats are doing the Trump-Ukraine investigation themselves, making it easier to reach the conclusion they want.

But so far at least, the investigation seems to have established that Trump's alleged misconduct exists in the eye of the beholder. Some officials heard the Zelensky call as it happened and saw no wrongdoing. Vindman, on the other hand, saw wrongdoing and got in touch with an unknown number of people about it. After that, the story grew and grew. How did one man's impression turn into the impeachment probe of today?

And that is what Chairman Schiff does not want the nation to know
.
So ... How did one man's impression turn into an impeachment probe?
The only people fighting the Russian probe was Trump and his worshippers. The only ones pitching Ukraine was right winger conspiracy goons.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
The only people fighting the Russian probe was Trump and worshippers. The only ones pitching Ukraine was right winger conspiracy goons.
Have you considered getting information from outlets having more varied perspectives?
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Several weeks of this argument being thrown around and still no one has been able to articulate what exactly would change about the accusations against Trump should the whistleblower's identity be known. The best anyone has come up with is the rather implausible assertion that EVERYONE is lying.

I'm going to re-post an analogy I made in another thread: A burglar robs a house and steals a hard drive. When he plugs that hard drive in, he finds a stash of child inappropriate contentography. If he then delivers that hard drive to the police and tells them who he stole it from, they're not going to NOT arrest the owner of the hard drive (after they determine that it truly is his) just because the person who delivered the evidence was untrustworthy. Sure, the burglar will be punished too, but it doesn't change what he found.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Several weeks of this argument being thrown around and still no one has been able to articulate what exactly would change about the accusations against Trump should the whistleblower's identity be known. The best anyone has come up with is the rather implausible assertion that EVERYONE is lying.

I'm going to re-post an analogy I made in another thread: A burglar robs a house and steals a hard drive. When he plugs that hard drive in, he finds a stash of child inappropriate contentography. If he then delivers that hard drive to the police and tells them who he stole it from, they're not going to NOT arrest the owner of the hard drive (after they determine that it truly is his) just because the person who delivered the evidence was untrustworthy. Sure, the burglar will be punished too, but it doesn't change what he found.
The current response to this analogy:
The alleged "stash" is just innocent pictures of children, completely harmless, in fact "perfect" pictures, and it is the job of the owner of the hard drive to take pictures of children in these situations, even if he does it for his own gain even more than for the sake of his employers. Or even if it isn't for the sake of his employers at all.

Everyone else, who sees these "perfect pictures" as something bad - from the original thief, to the person the thief first told about that, to the police, to various expert witnesses, to the procecutors... they all have nefarious motives to harm to original owner.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,126
Los Angeles Area
✟820,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Why are House Democrats stonewalling questions about the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower?


Because anonymity is part of the protections whistleblowers receive to encourage them to come forth without fear of reprisal?
Because all of the testimony we've seen has largely corroborated the initial report and provided additional detail from people more closely involved with the incidents?

questions about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.

What questions? Papadopoulos blabbed about Russian interference in a bar.

The conservative story during Mueller was that 'process crimes' like lying under oath to the FBI were hardly even crimes at all. So let's drop this process nonsense and focus on the important things, like the mounting evidence that there were corrupt government acts directed by a president abusing his powers.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Have you considered getting information from outlets having more varied perspectives?
You should try it but if you were listening to right wing news, it was plastered all over the place so maybe you weren't paying attention.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
You should try it ...
I do. I post from liberal outlets here all the time.

I was simply asking whether you were similarly open to receiving information from sources you perhaps haven't been very receptive to.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,775
17,082
✟1,389,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
err the Title should read: Trump loyalist don't want to accept the WB followed the law and his/her complaint was found to be legitimate by the IG.

...it did take a few days though, for the Trump diversion media get rolling.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I do. I post from liberal outlets here all the time.

I was simply asking whether you were similarly open to receiving information from sources you perhaps haven't been very receptive to.
Sure, have you seen my posts of Judge Napolitano, Chris Wallace, and Shepherd Smith. They are all right wingers who have no problem calling out right wing lies.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cow451
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
144,666
17,340
USA/Belize
✟1,738,735.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
From the "Don't you dare look over there", files:
Democrats don't want public to know origins of Ukraine probe like they didn't want public to know origins of Russia probe

Why are House Democrats stonewalling questions about the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower?

Start by taking them at their word. Perhaps they really are concerned about the whistleblower's personal safety. They also know that, beyond a limited prohibition applying to the inspector general of the intelligence community, no law bars anyone, in politics, media, or anywhere else, from revealing the whistleblower's identity. So they worry.
...
Democrats do not want the public to know. And in that, their position is familiar to anyone who has watched Washington for the last two years: The Democrats' determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Ukraine investigation is strikingly similar to their determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.
...
Nunes' efforts eventually led to a Justice Department inspector general investigation whose results, expected in coming weeks, could further damage the Democratic Trump-Russia storyline. And then there is the ongoing criminal investigation led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.
...
In the Trump-Russia affair, the investigation was entrusted to a special counsel who ultimately could not establish that Schiff's and the Democrats' key allegation, a conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, ever actually occurred. Now, House Democrats are doing the Trump-Ukraine investigation themselves, making it easier to reach the conclusion they want.

But so far at least, the investigation seems to have established that Trump's alleged misconduct exists in the eye of the beholder. Some officials heard the Zelensky call as it happened and saw no wrongdoing. Vindman, on the other hand, saw wrongdoing and got in touch with an unknown number of people about it. After that, the story grew and grew. How did one man's impression turn into the impeachment probe of today?

And that is what Chairman Schiff does not want the nation to know
.
So ... How did one man's impression turn into an impeachment probe?

So you expect the Democrats to break the law about whistleblowers?

This is just a right wing talking point designed to distract from the president's own summary of a call to the Ukraine president. He was caught holding back money that Congress approved in a budget to get a political investigation on Biden to help himself (Trump) politically and personally.
 
Upvote 0