Whistleblower on the Ukraine call was anti-Trump?

Hi mukk,

I'm curious. Does his political persuasion necessarily make his testimony untrue?

Don't you understand yet, that's what President Trump does. It's the reason he was asking the Ukraine to investigate the Biden's. He digs up or makes up dirt to throw and see what sticks.

This article is nothing more than Trump speak. Oh, that person that doesn't like me or doesn't agree with me or has some bone to pick with me, they're a democrat or a part of the fake news. This is how he defends himself against attacks is to show that the person attacking must not like him. Therefore, because they don't like him, nothing they say can be trusted. Or, because they're a Democrat or member of the fake news media, nothing they say can be trusted. It's classic Trump. I'm honestly surprised, while I understand that there are some who are to the bone supporters of Donald Trump, that they don't at least realize his tactics by now. By now, his supporters should at least be able to say, "Oh yea, here goes my champion. That's how he does it! Booya! He rounds up a bunch of other sycophants like me to tell me what I want to hear. To discredit his detractors by claiming that they're a part of some group that he believes doesn't like him and is therefore making up all lies. That's why he's my champion."

It isn't even possible, to those who are die hard Trump supporters, that while someone may not like him, they can still be telling the truth about him. That's exactly what this article is saying.

From the article: A senior administration official told Fox News there are a “few words” in the transcript that will raise eyebrows, but it is nowhere near as inflammatory as Democrats have suggested.

Already, the WH is preparing us for the fact that even they believe there are parts of this call transcript that are going to raise eyebrows. How can they say that and then wonder why someone would file a whistleblower complaint. That's exactly the purpose of whistleblower complaints. To see to it that things done by any government official that might raise eyebrows sees the light of day to be looked into. That's the very definition of a whistleblower: A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public.

Such things as illegal or unethical or not correct behavior by someone is supposed to raise eyebrows. When it does, they the person who's eyebrows were raised, has the right, and often is held responsible to report such behavior. By definition it doesn't even have to be illegal. It can just have the appearance of impropriety.

So, I would fully expect, just as Nixon tried to do, for the present administration to try and protect themselves and project their defense before releasing any document that might raise the eyebrows of the public. That's exactly what this article, speaking about a report issued by the WH, is telling us. They are reporting on the fact that the WH, not necessarily this news source, is saying that the call transcript is not damaging. Of course they would! Duh? However, and this is the part that is dangerous for them, they are also preparing us in advance for blowback about some of the things found in the transcript.

Oh, and BTW, we already know that President Trump is not above telling this intelligence community inspector general, just as he did NOAA, you'll support my understanding of things or people are going to be looking for another job.

I'm just sayin'.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

mukk_in said:

Interesting piece on Fox.

WH to release document showing intel community watchdog found whistleblower had 'political bias,' official says

Click to expand...

If he was a Democrat or Republican it matters little, if his claim is legitimate.

Thanks to all the speculative news sources all over the place people will never get the story for this either.

I can't even count the amount of 'source close to' whatever they were reporting on that claimed the worse, and turns out nothing even close.

Yes, this story needs to be put out there. Yet, the 24/7 news cycle doesn't understand there are tons of happenings all over the globe they could talk about too.

I'm waiting on substance, and I hope we will get it.

miamited said:

Don't you understand yet, that's what President Trump does. It's the reason he was asking the Ukraine to investigate the Biden's.

Click to expand...

Is there evidence for claims of quid-pro-quo from the Ukrainian President as people have been led to believe over the last few days?

Already, the WH is preparing us for the fact that even they believe there are parts of this call transcript that are going to raise eyebrows.

Click to expand...

What about it raises eyebrows? And are those eyebrow raising moments (a) new or (b) rising to the level of "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors?"

When I read the release, I see someone who is a little incompetent as head of state, which is not new and so isn't surprising to me. He's worried about things that seem beneath the office as he always does. But does it rise to an impeachable offence? I don't see how.

Hi yedcidmj,

You wrote:

Yekcidmij said:

When I read the release, I see someone who is a little incompetent as head of state, which is not new and so isn't surprising to me. He's worried about things that seem beneath the office as he always does. But does it rise to an impeachable offence? I don't see how.

Click to expand...

Let's do keep in mind that this is just the beginning. This is the transcript of one phone call. I'm willing to wait and read the whistleblower report and then review all of the involved contacts. We don't know where this call falls in the line of contacts. Are there other contacts where he may have been a bit more 'encouraging' of Ukraine to investigate Biden. Further, why would President Trump even care if the Ukraine investigated Biden? The United States isn't bound by the laws of Ukraine. If President Trump believes that there was some malfeasance in the efforts of Biden in the Ukraine, then he has a fully, although according to President Trump, likely less competent investigative department to find out whether or not the Biden's broke any United States laws or even whether or not there was any impropriety in anything they have done.

Last I read, Hunter Biden gave up his job, even though the company offered him an extension for the very reason that he didn't want there to be even the hint of any impropriety. Does this honestly sound to you like people who are cheating us somehow? Now, did this company initially give Hunter Biden the job because they may have wanted to have an 'in' with the father? Maybe, but unless the father made overtures or somehow coerced them into giving his son the job with the promise of some reward, it isn't illegal that the companies efforts may have been to get close to the father. That's the companies sole responsibility.

President Trump seems to be trying to dig up a non-starter and since he can't get any U.S. agency to play his game, he's trying to get some foreign agency to play.

It just smells. But as I say, I think we have a bit further to go before we can really claim that the whistleblower's concerns were unfounded. I'm willing to wait.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

I'm willing to wait and read the whistleblower report and then review all of the involved contacts.

Click to expand...

I would agree that the complaint needs to be read at this point.

Yekcidmij said:

I would agree that the complaint needs to be read at this point.

Click to expand...

Hi yekcidmij,

I think we also need to be careful in our reading. According to the folks who released the 'memo' on the conversation, this is not actually a transcript. From CBS news:

The memorandum released by the Justice Department is not, according to the administration, a verbatim transcript. The text, according to the document released by the administration, is the record of the notes and recollections of the officers and National Security Council policy staff "assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form."

So, do we really know exactly what President Trump said to Zolensky or are we dependent on how someone working under President Trump 'recalled' the conversation? Remember, Sean Spacer supported President Trump's claim that his was the largest attended inauguration. The NOAA, after apparently being threatened by someone in the administration that heads would roll, a week later supported the President's claim that Dorian might have been headed to Alabama when President Trump made his comments.

President Trump does seem to wield a formidable power over people in his administration with threats and intimidation. Which, by the way, is what just about every book that has been written about him from people who worked in his administration have told us.

President Trump actually promised to release the full and unredacted transcript of his call. That isn't what his administration has released according to the testimony of the memo itself. Let's not be naive. Donald Trump has spent the better part of his life honing his craft. His greatest mentor, by his own admission, was Roy Cohn

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

I think we also need to be careful in our reading. According to the folks who released the 'memo' on the conversation, this is not actually a transcript.

Click to expand...

True. The note takers (usually more than one) usually do a pretty thorough job though. While there could be something lurking in the shadows, I suspect they captured what counts.

Yekcidmij said:

True. The note takers (usually more than one) usually do a pretty thorough job though. While there could be something lurking in the shadows, I suspect they captured what counts.

"CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen.and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indifate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear."​

Click to expand...

Hi yekcidmij,

It isn't a matter of whether or not they 'can' or usually do a 'thorough' job. It's a matter of how President Trump seems to be able to hold a power over a certain group of people to do what he tells them to do...or else. Sean Spicer, unless he's really blind, knew that his confirming Trump's account of his inauguration was lie. Sarah Sanders, at one point, even admitted to telling a lie for the President. The President himself admitted to making up an entire account for the Canadian PM. As I said, Donald Trump has spent a great deal of his adult life fine tuning and honing his craft which is to make people believe what he wants them to believe. Some, who study such behaviors, say that he is right up there in the top of people with such abilities.

I'll repeat, let's not be naive.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

It's a matter of how President Trump seems to be able to hold a power over a certain group of people to do what he tells them to do...or else.

Click to expand...

I doubt Trump is concerned with people taking notes. These are usually low-level personnel who sit somewhere inconspicuous (or even just listening in on the phone), saying nothing, and file their notes in a classified file never to be referenced again for 25+ years (when they can be declassified). There's a good chance he didn't know they existed until someone told him they had notes of his conversation...(my speculation).

Do you have evidence that Trump has been some strong-arming note-takers?

I'll repeat, let's not be naive.

Click to expand...

Which is why I'm asking for evidence.

Hi yekcidmij,

Thanks for your reply:

Yekcidmij said:

Do you have evidence that Trump has been some strong-arming note-takers?

Click to expand...

Just what I offered as evidence that at least one administration official has admitted to lying to us about the president. That Sean Spicer had to be blind to not know that he was giving us a false narrative concerning the attendance at the inauguration. Admittedly all anecdotal, but it certainly raises questions about what we can actually believe that is put out by the administration.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Yekcidmij said:

I doubt Trump is concerned with people taking notes. These are usually low-level personnel who sit somewhere inconspicuous (or even just listening in on the phone), saying nothing, and file their notes in a classified file never to be referenced again for 25+ years (when they can be declassified). There's a good chance he didn't know they existed until someone told him they had notes of his conversation...(my speculation).
Do you have evidence that Trump has been some strong-arming note-takers?
Which is why I'm asking for evidence.

Click to expand...

In this instance unless one of the "note takers" comes forward it is somewhat speculative, however there was this: Trump and Putin Have Met Five Times. What Was Said Is a Mystery.