The difference in how the the Trump supporters and the Dems see the whistleblower!

To the Trump supporters, I call them Trumpsters for short but not as a negative, and the GOP the WB was a rat or a snitch. From what I have watched on TV and read on this message board, that is how the Trumpsters see the WB and they are angry he reported anything and got this impeachment inquiry started. I think they perceive him also to be disloyal to Trump and a never Trump person. They want him to be outed so that they can punish him for doing so, even though they maintain that they just want to ask what he knew and that Trump deserves to face his accuser. Hard to believe when the WB did not actually witness anything.
Then the Dems perceive the WB as the one who started the impeachment of Trump, something that many of them felt should have happened after the Mueller Report. They have a strong urge to protect the WB from the punishment that the Trumpsters and the GOP will hand out. I think they see him also as some kind of hero bull**** for willing to come forward.
I think neither of the sides is right. I think that the WB is just a public servant who heard about something he thought might not be right and reported it as he should to the IG. I suggest that if this had been in the Obama administration and it had been reported, that the GOP would be doing the same thing that the Dems are doing right now if they controlled the House. I do not see the WB as a "snitch or rat' and I do not see the WB as some kind of hero. I see him as someone who did his job as he was supposed to do. You may disagree with me, but it is just my opinion having known many such people in my past work.

I wouldn't necessarily call the whistle blower a hero, but coming forward with evidence of wrongdoing was a brave act in the political climate we find ourselves in. You have to empathize with their current plight as they attempted to do the right thing only to have the President accuse them of treason and insinuate they should be killed. So they now have that hanging over their heads along with conservative pundits and politicians trying to score points with Trump by attacking and trying to out their identity.

In an administration filled with people who have been all too willing to sit by in silence or complicity while horrible things have been said and done, the few bright spots stand out.

independentusa said:

To the Trump supporters, I call them Trumpsters for short but not as a negative, and the GOP the WB was a rat or a snitch. From what I have watched on TV and read on this message board, that is how the Trumpsters see the WB and they are angry he reported anything and got this impeachment inquiry started. I think they perceive him also to be disloyal to Trump and a never Trump person. They want him to be outed so that they can punish him for doing so, even though they maintain that they just want to ask what he knew and that Trump deserves to face his accuser. Hard to believe when the WB did not actually witness anything.
Then the Dems perceive the WB as the one who started the impeachment of Trump, something that many of them felt should have happened after the Mueller Report. They have a strong urge to protect the WB from the punishment that the Trumpsters and the GOP will hand out. I think they see him also as some kind of hero bull**** for willing to come forward.
I think neither of the sides is right. I think that the WB is just a public servant who heard about something he thought might not be right and reported it as he should to the IG. I suggest that if this had been in the Obama administration and it had been reported, that the GOP would be doing the same thing that the Dems are doing right now if they controlled the House. I do not see the WB as a "snitch or rat' and I do not see the WB as some kind of hero. I see him as someone who did his job as he was supposed to do. You may disagree with me, but it is just my opinion having known many such people in my past work.

Click to expand...

Substitute the names Fred and (his son) John Smith (of republicant party affiliation) for Joe and Hunter Biden and ask yourself would that WB have been equally concerned (alarmed?) about Trump's requesting the Ukrainian investigation of their alleged corruption? To try to assert that political motivation had nothing to do with this WB's actions is dishonest.

ttwtt78640 said:

Substitute the names Fred and (his son) John Smith (of republicant party affiliation) for Joe and Hunter Biden and ask yourself would that WB have been equally concerned (alarmed?) about Trump's requesting the Ukrainian investigation of their alleged corruption? To try to assert that political motivation had nothing to do with this WB's actions is dishonest.

Click to expand...

Well, then I hope you have some pretty overwhelming evidence to back up that claim.

What have you got? All I've seen anyone do is claim that the whistleblower is a Democrat, and then assume that means he must have been acting to *get* Trump and not because what he heard was wrong. That is the dishonesty; you have no idea why he acted. An assumption isn't evidence.

It's also hypocrisy, since not one person who has said that applies the same rationale to their own actions. They don't ask themselves "am I saying this thing here on DP because I'm a Trumpist and thus must have a political motivation to *get* the left?" And they certainly don't ask "did I make the assumption that a Democrat would just want to *get* Trump and not act because he saw something wrong because I am acting based on my political motivation as a Trumipst?"





Do you act with a political motivation to *get* liberals and *get* conservatives because you consider yourself a Libertarian? No? Then don't be so quick to assume the whistleblower must have acted out of political motivation.

Mr Person said:

Well, then I hope you have some pretty overwhelming evidence to back up that claim.

What have you got? All I've seen anyone do is claim that the whistleblower is a Democrat, and then assume that means he must have been acting to *get* Trump and not because what he heard was wrong. That is the dishonesty; you have no idea why he acted. An assumption isn't evidence.

It's also hypocrisy, since not one person who has said that applies the same rationale to their own actions. They don't ask themselves "am I saying this thing here on DP because I'm a Trumpist and thus must have a political motivation to *get* the left?" And they certainly don't ask "did I make the assumption that a Democrat would just want to *get* Trump and not act because he saw something wrong because I am acting based on my political motivation as a Trumipst?"





Do you act with a political motivation to *get* liberals and *get* conservatives because you consider yourself a Libertarian? No? Then don't be so quick to assume the whistleblower must have acted out of political motivation.

Click to expand...

You make a very valid point - yet without the ability to question a person (witness or accuser?) one has no idea as to their motives or connections to any of the parties involved.

ttwtt78640 said:

You make a very valid point - yet without the ability to question a person (witness or accuser?) one has no idea as to their motives or connections to any of the parties involved.

Click to expand...

Which are irrelevant of course.

When you are investigating a case of suspected arson, you look at all of the evidence available and try to link it to the likely suspect. What you don't do is spend all of your time obsessing over the person who pulled the fire alarm and whether or not they liked the person who set the building on fire.

ttwtt78640 said:

Substitute the names Fred and (his son) John Smith (of republicant party affiliation) for Joe and Hunter Biden and ask yourself would that WB have been equally concerned (alarmed?) about Trump's requesting the Ukrainian investigation of their alleged corruption? To try to assert that political motivation had nothing to do with this WB's actions is dishonest.

Click to expand...

Since Fred and John Smith would not have been a political opponent, and would likely not involve the Ukrainian president in our elections, then it would not be of note.

But why even bring up this nonsensical "what if" scenario?

ttwtt78640 said:

You make a very valid point - yet without the ability to question a person (witness or accuser?) one has no idea as to their motives or connections to any of the parties involved.

Click to expand...

Does it matter though? The WB’s account has been corroborated several times now. Whether he is a repub dem or whatever you want to call him is irrelevant. It’s sad the republicans are using this argument but I guess that’s the only defense they have ... to try and paint the WB as some person with shady motivations. That hasn’t been proven. What has been proven is that his account was deemed credible. So why not focus on that information, than your assumption to which you have no evidence of?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ttwtt78640 said:

You make a very valid point - yet without the ability to question a person (witness or accuser?) one has no idea as to their motives or connections to any of the parties involved.

Click to expand...

I'd like to hear a coherent explanation from the GOP of why they want the whistleblower to testify, one which takes account of all the other things they've said. Until very recently they were insisting we should simply ignore him because he doesn't have first hand information. We've since been hearing from witnesses with first hand information that further backs up the whistleblower, just like their own edited memo did.

Substantively, the whistleblower's role is done. He revealed what he heard. Now we're hearing from the people who witnessed various parts of these events. What could they do but put on political theater about the whistleblower? The substantive question is what happened, per the people who actually witnessed it, and then whether he should be removed from office for what happened; the whistleblower has nothing to add to that at this point. That is, even if he did act out of political motivation, what he reported in fact happened in reality. If it did in fact happen, then his motivation for telling someone that he heard it had happened becomes irrelevant to the questions before congress.

Consider the common snitch. Let us say a crackhead who has been threatened with death by his dealer, to whom he owes $200. The crackhead, wanting to save his bacon or perhaps wanting revenge on the dealer, goes to the police and eventually helps take the dealer down in a sting. His motivation is not some pure desire to improve the community, but this has nothing to do with the question of whether the dealer sold crack illegally. Or change the facts. The snitch is taking down his dealer's rival. Still doesn't change anything, does it? The question is the same no matter the motive of the informant.

(One should also consider the context here, which is that the GOP has flopped from one defense to another, regularly contradicting itself; Lindsey Graham tries to make it look like the Dems are hiding things with "we need the transcripts!", and then when they release the transcripts, he tries to show strength with "I'm not going to be reading any transcripts." It's the reverse is what's going on with their shifting approach to the whistleblower).





I certainly wouldn't object to a deal: whistleblower testifies and they get their chance to try to distract people with political theatre about his alleged motives, BUT in exchange, Trump orders everyone he has stonewalling to fully cooperate and he himself answers questions under oath and orally.

Airyaman said:

Since Fred and John Smith would not have been a political opponent, and would likely not involve the Ukrainian president in our elections, then it would not be of note.

But why even bring up this nonsensical "what if" scenario?

Click to expand...

Precisely because the alleged "crime" requires a political motive and therefore one is not allowed (due to partisan political House rules) to provide any evidence of or witness(es) to the alleged corruption.

ttwtt78640 said:

Precisely because the alleged "crime" requires a political motive and therefore one is not allowed (due to partisan political House rules) to provide any evidence of or witness(es) to the alleged corruption.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of witnesses who are, as you know, being blocked from testifying or even handing over relevant documents by the Trump administration. Democrats would love to have more first hand accounts of what transpired from Bolton, Mulvaney, Giulliani, Pompeo, or even Trump himself. The cover up is totally on the Republicans and they should remember that next time they whine about the sources currently testifying.

independentusa said:

To the Trump supporters, I call them Trumpsters for short but not as a negative, and the GOP the WB was a rat or a snitch. From what I have watched on TV and read on this message board, that is how the Trumpsters see the WB and they are angry he reported anything and got this impeachment inquiry started. I think they perceive him also to be disloyal to Trump and a never Trump person. They want him to be outed so that they can punish him for doing so, even though they maintain that they just want to ask what he knew and that Trump deserves to face his accuser. Hard to believe when the WB did not actually witness anything.
Then the Dems perceive the WB as the one who started the impeachment of Trump, something that many of them felt should have happened after the Mueller Report. They have a strong urge to protect the WB from the punishment that the Trumpsters and the GOP will hand out. I think they see him also as some kind of hero bull**** for willing to come forward.
I think neither of the sides is right. I think that the WB is just a public servant who heard about something he thought might not be right and reported it as he should to the IG. I suggest that if this had been in the Obama administration and it had been reported, that the GOP would be doing the same thing that the Dems are doing right now if they controlled the House. I do not see the WB as a "snitch or rat' and I do not see the WB as some kind of hero. I see him as someone who did his job as he was supposed to do. You may disagree with me, but it is just my opinion having known many such people in my past work.

Click to expand...

Yeah Republicans believe in facts reason and logic. Ie you actually have knowledge wrong doing.

With leftist all you need is some torches and pitches forks yell with loud enough and it is good enough for them.

One is based in reality and reason the other is based on slimming anyone you can.
There is a reason we did away with witch trials a long time ago.

PoliSciXtina said:

Does it matter though? The WB’s account has been corroborated several times now. Whether he is a repub dem or whatever you want to call him is irrelevant. It’s sad the republicans are using this argument but I guess that’s the only defense they have ... to try and paint the WB as some person with shady motivations. That hasn’t been proven. What has been proven is that his account was deemed credible. So why not focus on that information, than your assumption to which you have no evidence of?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

OK, but what if the WB was created (or encouraged) by a legal team which had said long ago (in 2017) that Trump should be removed from office? The entire case against Trump is based on him having shady political motivations - is it not?

Excast said:

There are plenty of witnesses who are, as you know, being blocked from testifying or even handing over relevant documents by the Trump administration. Democrats would love to have more first hand accounts of what transpired from Bolton, Mulvaney, Giulliani, Pompeo, or even Trump himself. The cover up is totally on the Republicans and they should remember that next time they whine about the sources currently testifying.

Click to expand...

Hmm... the prosecution should be able to call any and all (potentially supporting) witnesses, yet the defense may call only those (potentially exonerating) witnesses which the prosecution approves of - that sounds quite fair.

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, but what if the WB was created (or encouraged) by a legal team which had said long ago (in 2017) that Trump should be removed from office? The entire case against Trump is based on him having shady political motivations - is it not?

Click to expand...

Unless the WB's motives shaded subsequent testimony of corroborating witnesses what possible point could you make about Trump's actions from exposing his motives?

ttwtt78640 said:

Hmm... the prosecution should be able to call any and all (potentially supporting) witnesses, yet the defense may call only those (potentially exonerating) witnesses which the prosecution approves of - that sounds quite fair.

Click to expand...

Talk to the people who made the rules. Most of them are standing in line behind the president, waiting for their whack. Thank you sir. May I have another?

independentusa said:

To the Trump supporters, I call them Trumpsters for short but not as a negative, and the GOP the WB was a rat or a snitch. From what I have watched on TV and read on this message board, that is how the Trumpsters see the WB and they are angry he reported anything and got this impeachment inquiry started. I think they perceive him also to be disloyal to Trump and a never Trump person. They want him to be outed so that they can punish him for doing so, even though they maintain that they just want to ask what he knew and that Trump deserves to face his accuser. Hard to believe when the WB did not actually witness anything.
Then the Dems perceive the WB as the one who started the impeachment of Trump, something that many of them felt should have happened after the Mueller Report. They have a strong urge to protect the WB from the punishment that the Trumpsters and the GOP will hand out. I think they see him also as some kind of hero bull**** for willing to come forward.
I think neither of the sides is right. I think that the WB is just a public servant who heard about something he thought might not be right and reported it as he should to the IG. I suggest that if this had been in the Obama administration and it had been reported, that the GOP would be doing the same thing that the Dems are doing right now if they controlled the House. I do not see the WB as a "snitch or rat' and I do not see the WB as some kind of hero. I see him as someone who did his job as he was supposed to do. You may disagree with me, but it is just my opinion having known many such people in my past work.

Click to expand...

ludin said:

Yeah Republicans believe in facts reason and logic. Ie you actually have knowledge wrong doing.

Click to expand...

Apparently they believe in none of those things, nor do they believe in the English language.

ludin said:

With leftist all you need is some torches and pitches forks yell with loud enough and it is good enough for them. One is based in reality and reason the other is based on slimming anyone you can.

Click to expand...

How does on slim upon someone else? Do I wave a wand and you lose weight or something? Putting aside your chronic failure to use the word that actually expresses whatever fresh idiocy you plan on uttering, I could ask: you mean like how you're trying to throw slime on him and on "leftist", whatever or whomever "leftist" is?




Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you should simply stop typing. Everything you post is some mixture of idiocy and dishonesty, with a healthy dose of hypocrisy mixed in. It's hard to read because you do not use anything remotely close to proper diction, grammar, syntax, or even formatting. And that's when you don't try to move the goalpost, drop it on your foot, then forget where you wanted to move it to but keep on trying to argue anyway.

Just stop. Give up. Every last piece of evidence that comes out, even the dishonestly edited "memo" you and Trump falsely called a "transcript", has corroborated what the whistleblower said. Because things look so bad for Trump, you are going out of your way to try to slime the whistleblower, independentusa, and "leftist", whomever he is. Of course, you cannot even do that honestly. First you say we should NOT hear from the whistleblower because he only has second-hand information. Then when first-hand information corroborates him, you say we MUST hear from him or else the Dems are hiding things. You say that even though Trump ordered all the people still under his command to hide things from the Dems, to not cooperate.

Same thing with Graham and the transcripts.

Graham: "The Dems are hiding the transcripts."
Dems: "Here are the transcripts."
Graham: "I will not be reading any transcripts."
Dems: :roll:




And yet there you stand, pissing all over the concepts of honor, dignity, and basic human decency while trying to claim some illusion of moral high ground.

/spit

Snitches get stitches. That's the 2019 GOP.

Those stitches could be real or career/professional.

Mr Person said:

Apparently they believe in none of those things, nor do they believe in the English language.

Click to expand...

When they do use logic, often as not it's from the chapter titled, "Fellacious Arguments: They sound so real". It fills the space where logical arguments would go if they had them.

ttwtt78640 said:

Hmm... the prosecution should be able to call any and all (potentially supporting) witnesses, yet the defense may call only those (potentially exonerating) witnesses which the prosecution approves of - that sounds quite fair.

Click to expand...

Actually the only witnesses by the GOP that have been turned down were the WB and Hunter Biden. Neither of these two have any direct knowledge of what Trump and his people did or did not do. The GOP just wants to out the WB so they can punish him and then to try and trash Hunter Biden and thus to accomplish what Trump tried to do with the Ukraine president. They are the only witnesses called by the GOP. What is interesting is that they have not called any of Trump's people in the administration who would have direct knowledge. Why do you think that they have not called any of them to be witnesses? I would think if they have not come forward now, they should not be allowed to testify in the future as they had their chance.

independentusa said:

Actually the only witnesses by the GOP that have been turned down were the WB and Hunter Biden. Neither of these two have any direct knowledge of what Trump and his people did or did not do. The GOP just wants to out the WB so they can punish him and then to try and trash Hunter Biden and thus to accomplish what Trump tried to do with the Ukraine president. They are the only witnesses called by the GOP. What is interesting is that they have not called any of Trump's people in the administration who would have direct knowledge. Why do you think that they have not called any of them to be witnesses? I would think if they have not come forward now, they should not be allowed to testify in the future as they had their chance.

Click to expand...

I would be interested in the WB because some of what was discussed (and included in the WB report) was classified and as such could only be legally shared with other cleared folks and on a need to know basis.

Hunter Biden should be required to explain what very valuable services he was providing Burisma (with no requirement to be on site, speak the language or have any industry related knowledge) aside from having his father (et al) pumping more USAID funding their way. There has concern expressed (by Schiff's witnesses) about the "appearance of a conflict of interest" by having Hunter Biden drawing a hefty salary (over that of the POTUS), in a "job" which appeared to have no duties at a Ukrainian gas company (suspected of corruption?) while it was deemed in need of receiving USAID funding.

ttwtt78640 said:

I would be interested in the WB because some of what was discussed (and included in the WB report) was classified and as such could only be legally shared with other cleared folks and on a need to know basis.

Hunter Biden should be required to explain what very valuable services he was providing Burisma (with no requirement to be on site, speak the language or have any industry related knowledge) aside from having his father (et al) pumping more USAID funding their way. There has concern expressed (by Schiff's witnesses) about the "appearance of a conflict of interest" by having Hunter Biden drawing a hefty salary (over that of the POTUS), in a "job" which appeared to have no duties at a Ukrainian gas company (suspected of corruption?) while it was deemed in need of receiving USAID funding.

Click to expand...

Even if you proved Hunter was guilty of a crime it would not undo anything Trump may have done.

Repugs are hoping if Biden is guilty then Trump is justified. Too bad.

ttwtt78640 said:

I would be interested in the WB because some of what was discussed (and included in the WB report) was classified and as such could only be legally shared with other cleared folks and on a need to know basis.

Hunter Biden should be required to explain what very valuable services he was providing Burisma (with no requirement to be on site, speak the language or have any industry related knowledge) aside from having his father (et al) pumping more USAID funding their way. There has concern expressed (by Schiff's witnesses) about the "appearance of a conflict of interest" by having Hunter Biden drawing a hefty salary (over that of the POTUS), in a "job" which appeared to have no duties at a Ukrainian gas company (suspected of corruption?) while it was deemed in need of receiving USAID funding.

Click to expand...

The whistleblower went to the IG, who would have clearance to listen to what the WB said to him. So there is no problem with classified material.
And what does Hunter Biden have to do with Trump trying to force a foreign government into investigating his opponent. And if Hunter got the job due to his dad so what. Is not the first time a person got a job due to the influence of the father. I hate to deflect but, look at all of the jobs Trump's kids have gotten due to their dad, including jobs in the White House where they could not even get security clearances for until Trump gave them the clearances. That seems a lot more like corruption than anything Hunter Biden did. Then look at Trump owning a hotel in Washington where Trump makes money off foreign governments who want to influence Trump's decisions. So Hunter Biden got a job due to his father's influence, is there any proof of corruption or do you like Trump want to try and hurt Hunter Biden's father as the possible Dem candidate in the 2020 election Kind of where we say there is smoke, we will try and make you think there is fire, although we have no proof of either.

ttwtt78640 said:

Substitute the names Fred and (his son) John Smith (of republicant party affiliation) for Joe and Hunter Biden and ask yourself would that WB have been equally concerned (alarmed?) about Trump's requesting the Ukrainian investigation of their alleged corruption? To try to assert that political motivation had nothing to do with this WB's actions is dishonest.

Click to expand...

wudda shudda cudda's are not important. As the world will never know.
No matter the motivation. Fact is, tRUMP likely was using bribery for personal political gain. TBD however.

ttwtt78640 said:

You make a very valid point - yet without the ability to question a person (witness or accuser?) one has no idea as to their motives or connections to any of the parties involved.

Click to expand...

The motivation isn't all that relevant. The relevant point is, is the WB correct or incorrect.