• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new “America First” foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.

“Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,” said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.

“They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda,” the former official added. “They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations...ing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html

Leftists just cannot stand losing elections.
 
Leftists just cannot stand losing elections.

It will be interesting to see how the 'whistleblower' is handled in the impeachment trial. I don't see how his name and the information / testimony he provided can not be shared with the Senate, and certainly Trump's defense team will ask for this information. Given the Democrat cries for first-hand witness testimony - it would seem that his 'first hand' information he has would be relevant.
 
It will be interesting to see how the 'whistleblower' is handled in the impeachment trial. I don't see how his name and the information / testimony he provided can not be shared with the Senate, and certainly Trump's defense team will ask for this information. Given the Democrat cries for first-hand witness testimony - it would seem that his 'first hand' information he has would be relevant.
Yes, if there are witnesses, he will certainly be one of them. Which is why, despite all the hysterics on the left, we may not see any witnesses at all.
 
Character assassination. A mafia lawyer trick.
 
Yes, if there are witnesses, he will certainly be one of them. Which is why, despite all the hysterics on the left, we may not see any witnesses at all.

When was the identity of deepthroat finally revealed again?
 
When was the identity of deepthroat finally revealed again?

Why are you against witnesses? Why are you afraid of the truth?? This is all a cover-up... AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH :flames::flames::flames::flames:
 
If any witnesses are called, the whistleblower should be the first to take the stand.
 
Leftists just cannot stand losing elections.

Let's pretend this is true.

What in the WB's report has proven to be false?

Put another way, let's say I don't like a certain co-worker too much. I'm biased against him in fact. Then, others inform me that he has embezzling millions from the company. I report this, it is investigated, and turns out that he indeed had embezzled millions.

Does my bias towards him change the fact of embezzlement?
 
Yes, if there are witnesses, he will certainly be one of them. Which is why, despite all the hysterics on the left, we may not see any witnesses at all.

There really is no need for witnesses. It's clear that Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler et. al. decided the witnesses they heard from in the House were sufficient to their cause. Nevermind that a Porky Pig cartoon would've been sufficient to their cause. That's irrelevant, but too close to the truth to avoid mentioning, anyway.
 
If you don’t like your neighbor, you’re not allowed to call the cops on him if you see him burying Girl Scouts in his back yard.

That’s basically the OP’s legal take in a nut shell.
 
Yes, if there are witnesses, he will certainly be one of them. Which is why, despite all the hysterics on the left, we may not see any witnesses at all.

That's not why, but you do you...

It's another example of the right wing bubble. Approximately NONE of the case against Trump depends on anything the WB says, but right wingers just cannot let it go. Every time I hear about this guy now I get a mental image of Barney Fife yelling "Deep State! Deep State!" I read that somewhere, and it's the perfect image for this crap.
 
WB is irrelevant.
 
why are you against witnesses? Why are you afraid of the truth?? This is all a cover-up... Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh

deep state deep state!!! Whistleblower!! Treason!!!
 
Yes, if there are witnesses, he will certainly be one of them. Which is why, despite all the hysterics on the left, we may not see any witnesses at all.
Bring it on.

But we all know the ruse. Republicans get Biden and the WB, but when Bolton appears he just hides behind executive privilege and refuses to answer any questions on the Democrats side.

Get the WH to waive executive privilege and you'd have yourself a deal.
 
If you don’t like your neighbor, you’re not allowed to call the cops on him if you see him burying Girl Scouts in his back yard.

That’s basically the OP’s legal take in a nut shell.

Basically. And I forget at my own peril how big a hacks those that run the "realclear" sites are. The article in the OP might as well have been published by Jim "Dumbest Man on the Internet" Hoft's place.
 
That's not why, but you do you...

It's another example of the right wing bubble. Approximately NONE of the case against Trump depends on anything the WB says, but right wingers just cannot let it go. Every time I hear about this guy now I get a mental image of Barney Fife yelling "Deep State! Deep State!" I read that somewhere, and it's the perfect image for this crap.

Well, thats stupid. If you want the entire story, lets hear the entire story. You have no idea what the whistleblower knows or that he may say something that actually supports the president. Sorry, but if there are witnesses, he will be one of them. Sucks that you cant continue your cover-up.
 
Leftists just cannot stand losing elections.

You people just can't let go of your favorite obscure little far-right leaning sites, can you?
'Real Clear Investigations' recently ran a hyped up story about UFOs. Your problem on the right is that you are excited by any story that's sensational but without facts.

Here's their most recent list of 'investigations'

Screenshot_2020-01-22 RealClearInvestigations - Investigations, News, Analysis, Video and Polls.jpg

Real Clear Investigations - Media Bias/Fact Check

Analysis / Bias

RealClearInvestigations reports and links to news from other outlets and also produces its own original stories.

In review, RealClearInvestigations frequently uses emotionally loaded headlines such as this: “2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives” and “Mueller Still Relying on Discredited Steele Dossier.”
 
Leftists just cannot stand losing elections.

1. Anonymous sources are now ok? I wish you guys would make up your minds. :roll:

2. The whistleblower merely pointed out that he thought something was wrong, at which point others spoke up and that call transcript was released etc. etc. None of the evidence that is currently being discussed by anyone is based on the whistleblower complaint and no one is making the argument that the president did something wrong because the whistleblower said so. You could literally prove 100% that the whistleblower is a whack job and out of his mind and has been planning on figuring out a way to remove trump since he was elected and it wouldn't mean a single thing because his opinion and his claims don't mean anything at this point. The facts, testimony and evidence that has been found don't rely on his assertions the same way that if the police get an anonymous tip which leads them to investigate something and then they find DNA evidence and security footage. The only reason to continue attacking the anonymous tipster is that you desperately don't want to discuss the facts and would rather try to muddy the water with conspiracy theories, which is the typical Trump supporter MO.
 
Bring it on.

But we all know the ruse. Republicans get Biden and the WB, but when Bolton appears he just hides behind executive privilege and refuses to answer any questions on the Democrats side.

Get the WH to waive executive privilege and you'd have yourself a deal.

Nope.
 
1. Anonymous sources are now ok? I wish you guys would make up your minds. :roll:

2. The whistleblower merely pointed out that he thought something was wrong, at which point others spoke up and that call transcript was released etc. etc. None of the evidence that is currently being discussed by anyone is based on the whistleblower complaint and no one is making the argument that the president did something wrong because the whistleblower said so. You could literally prove 100% that the whistleblower is a whack job and out of his mind and has been planning on figuring out a way to remove trump since he was elected and it wouldn't mean a single thing because his opinion and his claims don't mean anything at this point. The facts, testimony and evidence that has been found don't rely on his assertions the same way that if the police get an anonymous tip which leads them to investigate something and then they find DNA evidence and security footage. The only reason to continue attacking the anonymous tipster is that you desperately don't want to discuss the facts and would rather try to muddy the water with conspiracy theories, which is the typical Trump supporter MO.

Hes a fact witness that you guys on the left insist on covering up. What are you afraid of?
 
Back
Top Bottom