Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

[humbolt]

Afternoon humbolt. Love the fitting sarcasm. While Shifty Schiff doesn't think the whistleblower is important because if he was revealed this damn charade would be over.

There's people out there connecting the dots on this whistleblower character, Eric Ciaramella. pronounced Char a mella. He is a holdover from the Obama administration who worked under Brennan at the CIA and was assigned to Joe Biden in all things Ukraine. He is also the person that wormed his way into the WH as McMasters' aide in foreign policy. Some have connected the dots that "Char-a-mella" is the "Charlie" that Strzok and Page identified as their mole in the WH. If you recall during the time of McMasters, the WH was leaking like a sieve.

Another character that folks have connected the dots is Lt. Col. Vindman another Obama holdover on all things Ukraine to be the one colluding with "Char-a-mella" aka Charlie.
From what has been revealed to this point, the Obama administration's policies with Ukraine were damn corrupt. That means anyone from Biden to "Char-a-mella aka Charlie and Lt. Col Vindman along with the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch are part of the corruption.

The good news is John Durham is investigating the corruption that occurred in Ukraine leading up to our 2016 election.

I have no doubt, "Char-a-mella" aka Charlie, Lt. Col. Vindman and Marie Yovanoitch as well as pro quo Joe Biden, his son Hunter and Barisma holdings are in his scope.

I certainly hope Durham is looking into it. The left is scared ****less about 2020, and this bit is typical. It's a huge diversion to accuse their opponent of the very thing they're guilty of in spades.

 

[Bullseye]

I know you Trump-bots don't have any respect for our laws and won't bend yourself to logic, but it is illegal to disclose the identity of a whistleblower. If you don't like the law, you should change it. It's there to prevent retaliation, which Trump and many Republicans have already called for. Schiff is completely right on this, the whistleblower's testimony is completely and totally irrelevant at this point as his initial accusation has been confirmed under oath by multiple first-hand accounts from top Trump administration officials.

As Cardinal put it a while back:



The idiotic argument this PoS is trying to make is that even though we found the thirty dead bodies and have multiple first hand accounts of the murders, we need to actively attack and analyze the background of the person that initially informed the police. The case and evidence against Trump have nothing to do with the whistleblower. Your attempts to distract are pathetic and transparent.

How can the document alleging the crimes Trump is accused of be irrelevant?

 

[Cordelier]

Considering his complaint is the basis for everything that followed, the only reason Schiff could say that is because he fears what will come out. Oh, and because his staff helped write the complaint.

To be fair, he wasn't the only person who made a complaint. Lt. Col. Vindman and Fiona Hill both took their concerns to NSC Counsel John Eisenberg before the WB even became aware of the July 25 call.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't know what you're talking about. On either front.

Of course you don't.

 

[humbolt]

I don't see anything unprincipled about the procedure whatsoever... The WB has offered to answer any written questions the Republicans may have - if it was good enough for the President to do the same with the Mueller Investigation, I don't see why it would be improper to do so now. Secondly, until the President sees fit to allow the release of some or all of the evidence on which he was relying on (assuming, by presumption of innocence, he was relaying on actual evidence) to encourage the investigation of Hunter Biden, then I don't see any possible relevance to his testifying. Tell me why this is unfair.

I'm sure you don't see anything. That's the whole point.

 

[Perotista]

I think you're wrong about that. If the President can make the case that he had a good reason to push the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens... that it wasn't just Rudy Giuliani's demented ravings and a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theories, then I think the Democrats could accept that. I go with much (but not all) of what Senator Kennedy (R-LA) said on Face the Nation earlier today:

SEN. KENNEDY: The quid pro quo, in my judgment, is a red herring. Here- here are the two possible scenarios. Number one, the president asked for an investigation of a political rival. Number two, the president asked for an investigation of possible corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival. The latter would be in the national interest. The former would be in the president's parochial interests and would be over the line. I think this case is going to come down to the president's intent- his motive. Did he have a culpable state of mind? For me, Margaret, there are only two relevant questions that need to be answered. Why did the president ask for an investigation? And number two, and this is inextricably linked to the first question, what did Mr. Hunter Biden do for the money?

I think you have more faith in our current political system than I. I see both parties as working and doing anything for a political advantage. Doing anything to either retain or gain power.

 

[SLC]

So how do you know that Zelensky said there was no quid pro quo?

Ukrainian President Zelensky Denies Trump Pressured Him | Time


Ukraine'''s Volodymyr Zelensky says there was no blackmail in Trump call

Interview: Ukraine'''s Poroshenko says he felt no pressure from Trump - Los Angeles Times

 

[Cardinal]

Ukrainian President Zelensky Denies Trump Pressured Him | Time


Ukraine'''s Volodymyr Zelensky says there was no blackmail in Trump call

Interview: Ukraine'''s Poroshenko says he felt no pressure from Trump - Los Angeles Times

Do you have any reliable sources?

 

[Cordelier]

Of course you don't.

Well, I don't... if you have concerns about Vindman's testimony, I haven't seen you make an argument to support it. And secondly, I have no idea if the other individual is the WB or not. I understand it's assumed by some people.... everybody had their guesses who Deep Throat was too. Doesn't mean they were right - I know I wasn't (I had Deke DeLoach).

 

[Perotista]

So you don’t care if a president is possibly abusing the powers of his office?

You don’t care if constitutional and political norms are being violated?

That seems to depend which side of the aisle one is on, doesn't it?

 

[Cordelier]

I'm sure you don't see anything. That's the whole point.

If you make a fact-based argument, I'll respond to it.

 

[Bullseye]

To be fair, he wasn't the only person who made a complaint. Lt. Col. Vindman and Fiona Hill both took their concerns to NSC Counsel John Eisenberg before the WB even became aware of the July 25 call.

But they never accused outright criminal behavior as I understand it.

 

[Cordelier]

I think you have more faith in our current political system than I. I see both parties as working and doing anything for a political advantage. Doing anything to either retain or gain power.

Admittedly, Lindsay Grahams are a dime a dozen. I don't trust the show horses. But I can appreciate the work horses. Senator Kennedy is a lot further to the right than I am, and I know he can dish out the red meat as much as anyone, but he can be fair as well. Kind of like Goldwater in '74.

 

[Cordelier]

But they never accused outright criminal behavior as I understand it.

I don't know... let's hear from Eisenberg.

 

[Vern]

I don't have to back up my assertion.

thank you for proving my point.

 

[humbolt]

If you make a fact-based argument, I'll respond to it.

Examine Schiff's lies, the quality of witness testmony, the selective leaks, the exclusion of any opposition comment within the proceedings - it's a virual lack of transparency - and ask yourself if you endorse such a process. I don't. We have Trump's transcript. We have a complaint, which even the recorder admits is second hand, and we have opinions and conjecture as testimony. My advice is that unless there is some meat here somewhere, it's a sham similar to Schiff's claims that he was the sole possessor of definitive collusion evidence.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Examine Schiff's lies, the quality of witness testmony, the selective leaks, the exclusion of any opposition comment within the proceedings - it's a virual lack of transparency - and ask yourself if you endorse such a process. I don't. We have Trump's transcript. We have a complaint, which even the recorder admits is second hand, and we have opinions and conjecture as testimony. My advice is that unless there is some meat here somewhere, it's a sham similar to Schiff's claims that he was the sole possessor of definitive collusion evidence.

These are just excuses meant to deflect away from Trump's bad actions.

Why are you complaining about transparency if Trump won't let his staff testify and isn't letting the House committees have access to the documents they requested?

If you're concerning about second-hand testimony get Trump and his staff to testify under oath.

We already have evidence of extortion and bribery in the phone call. In the transcript Trump is demanding an investigation into the Bidens and Crowdstrike in exchange for a sale of more javelin missiles. .

 

[W_Heisenberg]

That seems to depend which side of the aisle one is on, doesn't it?

Yeah thats because the Republicans are wrong.

 

[Cordelier]

Examine Schiff's lies, the quality of witness testmony, the selective leaks, the exclusion of any opposition comment within the proceedings - it's a virual lack of transparency - and ask yourself if you endorse such a process. I don't. We have Trump's transcript. We have a complaint, which even the recorder admits is second hand, and we have opinions and conjecture as testimony. My advice is that unless there is some meat here somewhere, it's a sham similar to Schiff's claims that he was the sole possessor of definitive collusion evidence.

Seems perfectly transparent to me... I've got full access to every word. If you want to cite a particular piece of testimony, I'm up for that.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No, there was no quid pro quo in that transcript. Go read it.

I've read the darn thing twenty times. There was an extortion attempt in the transcript. Zelenskyy asks for more javelin missile sales and trump says I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR THOUGH. Trump then talks about investigating Crowdstrike and the Bidens.

It's plain as day. I don't think YOU have read the transcript. If YOU had read the transcript you wouldn't be telling ME to go read it. And you wouldn't be saying there was no quid pro quo in the transcript. If you had read the transcript you'd be like, "WOW I can't believe Trump just tried to extort the President of Ukraine into investigating this bogus Crowdstrike conspiracy theory and the Bidens. This guy should be impeached."

I stated early on that it was a Rorschach test, in that what people want to see in it is what they'll see.

It's not a rorschach test. Trump supporters are acting in bad faith and are lying about the transcript, OR they haven't read the transcript, OR they are too stupid to read and comprehend English sentences.

In the end, there's no quid pro quo in that conversation that would stand up to the legal muster that it'll need to, and that's a fact.

It's not a fact. You don't know what you're talking about.

Let's examine the transcript. I know you haven't read it, so I'll paste it again. I am going to paste the whole thing so this will take about 3 posts.

 

[humbolt]

These are just excuses meant to deflect away from Trump's bad actions.

Why are you complaining about transparency if Trump won't let his staff testify and isn't letting the House committees have access to the documents they requested?

If you're concerning about second-hand testimony get Trump and his staff to testify under oath.

I'm not concerned about an endless litany of speculation and conjecture. I'm not paying any attention to it. As long as Schiff restricts witnesses, questions, and the like, I'm not willing to accept any conclusions based on it. Just because a proceeding doesn't necessarily have to meet the same requirements that a legal one would doesn't mean we should abandon the principles which underpin our legal system.

 

[trixare4kids]

Schiff won't let himself appear. That guy makes assholes look like buttercups. Who, with any principal at all, would put such a hemerrhoid in a leadership position?

A bigger hemorrhoid like Nancy Pelosi?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Go read it.

Let's read it together.

Post 1

--

The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn’t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It’s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.

President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example to our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I’m able to tell you the following; the first time you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.

The President: That’s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.

President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.

The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

-- Continued on Post 2

 

[eohrnberger]

I've read the darn thing twenty times. There was an extortion attempt in the transcript. Zelenskyy asks for more javelin missile sales and trump says I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR THOUGH. Trump then talks about investigating Crowdstrike and the Bidens.

It's plain as day. I don't think YOU have read the transcript. If YOU had read the transcript you wouldn't be telling ME to go read it. And you wouldn't be saying there was no quid pro quo in the transcript. If you had read the transcript you'd be like, "WOW I can't believe Trump just tried to extort the President of Ukraine into investigating this bogus Crowdstrike conspiracy theory and the Bidens. This guy should be impeached."



It's not a rorschach test. Trump supporters are acting in bad faith and are lying about the transcript, OR they haven't read the transcript, OR they are too stupid to read and comprehend English sentences.



It's not a fact. You don't know what you're talking about.

Let's examine the transcript. I know you haven't read it, so I'll paste it again. I am going to paste the whole thing so this will take about 3 posts.

You claim 'bad faith' from those who don't agree with you, yet there's no 'bad faith' from the multiple unfounded politically driven and clearly orchestrated attempts to overturn the 2016 election results? As was announced here hours, probably seconds after the 2016 election was called?

Yeah, sorry, not buying that for a second, nor for even a fraction of a second.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Go read it.

Post 2

President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

Continued on Post 3