The whistleblower complaint

[AnalHamster]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... laint.html

Get spinning trump cucks, he's fucked

[AnalHamster]

Ruh-roh, there is an actual transcript to go after. For some strange reason white house officials intervened to 'lock it down'. Shouldn't be an issue though eh? Chump already promised to release it

[beagleboy]

Weird how most have said to bring up an impeachment vote for months but it was AH who said he couldn't be impeached.

[AnalHamster]

Impeach and remove if proven. Not really much to spin here, chief

Yesterday you were saying you saw nothing wrong, now you say remove him from office if it's proven. Kinda seems like something to see then, no?

[AnalHamster]

Although the whistleblower doesnt really have any proof

He names witnesses and states there is a transcript that they have attempted to cover up by placing it in a different computer system. Trump's own IG views this is a credible and urgent complaint. Doesn't seem like a particularly difficult evidence trail to follow with subpoena power.

[AnalHamster]

Weird how most have said to bring up an impeachment vote for months but it was AH who said he couldn't be impeached.

I said moscow mitch would direct a vote to acquit in the kangaroo court of the senate, so impeachment will fail. The articles of impeachment were always gonna pass, the impeachment trial was always gonna fail. The senate are just going to look at lot worse doing it now.

With such a blatant slam dunker though, I'd actually say now that it's down to more like 60-40 that all the gop senators will betray their oaths of office and return a false verdict, there may well come a point in the hearings when enough senators jump ship that it'll go Nixon style.

[AnalHamster]

So this guy/gal/non-binary didnt witness or see any evidence. He used sources

Yeah, this is looking like horseshit

Yeah, no more credible than intelligence gathering or reporting

But uh-oh, impeachment inquiries have subpoena power.

[FSchmertz]

Although the whistleblower doesnt really have any proof

That's why the House (and Senate if they weren't Chump's buttboys) should be investigating, talking to anyone who was directly involved with what was going on as referred to in the letter.

They should just do their jobs.

[FSchmertz]

Weird how most have said to bring up an impeachment vote for months but it was AH who said he couldn't be impeached.

Couldn't be convicted in the Senate. I don't think so either.

Then you have to ask: Is it worth spending the House's time generating Articles of Impeachment if the Senate will never convict?

There's two things that I think might make it worthwhile, one political and one purely Constitutional:

1) The violations are proven to be so serious that the Senate will have no choice but convict (if for no other reason, to preserve their cushy jobs)

2) To make the Republicans in the Senate look really bad so that the Democrats increase their chances during future elections.

[FSchmertz]

Although the whistleblower doesnt really have any proof

He names witnesses and states there is a transcript that they have attempted to cover up by placing it in a different computer system. Trump's own IG views this is a credible and urgent complaint. Doesn't seem like a particularly difficult evidence trail to follow with subpoena power.

I think the main new thing from this is Chump seems to have lied when he said he was going to release the unredacted transcript. Up to now this has been explained by the possibility that such a thing doesn't exist.

We may have seen the memo that gets routinely circulated afterwards though.

P.S. Others have stated the memo is far too short to have been everything that took place timewise.

[AnalHamster]

Although the whistleblower doesnt really have any proof

He names witnesses and states there is a transcript that they have attempted to cover up by placing it in a different computer system. Trump's own IG views this is a credible and urgent complaint. Doesn't seem like a particularly difficult evidence trail to follow with subpoena power.

I think the main new thing from this is Chump seems to have lied when he said he was going to release the unredacted transcript.

We may have seen the memo that gets routinely circulated though.

P.S. Others have stated the memo is far too short to have been everything that took place timewise.

The transcripts normally go to cabinet level officials, instead in this case the transcript was locked down. That's part of the whistleblower complaint, part that should be very easy to prove. He states White House officials told him they were directed to do it.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the full transcript doesn't have an explicit quid pro quo either though, I expect it's just a more detailed version of the reconstructed release they rushed out to try and avoid impeachment. That in itself would be revealing though, for all the pretense that there's nothing there now they've been forced to release a version of it, his minions when they saw/heard it knew they had to try to cover it up.

[VinceBordenIII]

So, anything new? Haven’t read it yet.

[Tragic]

They are going after Barr. It all makes sense.

[AnalHamster]

They are going after Barr. It all makes sense.

Is it them pesky Jews again?

[FSchmertz]

Although the whistleblower doesnt really have any proof

He names witnesses and states there is a transcript that they have attempted to cover up by placing it in a different computer system. Trump's own IG views this is a credible and urgent complaint. Doesn't seem like a particularly difficult evidence trail to follow with subpoena power.

I think the main new thing from this is Chump seems to have lied when he said he was going to release the unredacted transcript.

We may have seen the memo that gets routinely circulated though.

P.S. Others have stated the memo is far too short to have been everything that took place timewise.

The transcripts normally go to cabinet level officials, instead in this case the transcript was locked down. That's part of the whistleblower complaint, part that should be very easy to prove. He states White House officials told him they were directed to do it.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the full transcript doesn't have an explicit quid pro quo either though, I expect it's just a more detailed version of the reconstructed release they rushed out to try and avoid impeachment. That in itself would be revealing though, for all the pretense that there's nothing there now they've been forced to release a version of it, his minions when they saw/heard it knew they had to try to cover it up.

I think, if they're going to find an obvious quid pro quo, it will be from grilling Giuliani. And I suspect he'll refuse to speak.

[VinceBordenIII]

Giuliani is the idiot in this comedy.

[FSchmertz]

So, anything new? Haven’t read it yet.

More allegations of what went on, but a lot of it would be termed "hearsay" in court, I think.

They have to investigate, and find the people who actually were present during the alleged events.

[AnalHamster]

Giuliani keeps blurting out things he shouldn't on tv, I wouldn't rely on him following omerta.

[FSchmertz]

Giuliani is the idiot in this comedy.

Something happened in his noggin' post-mayoralty. Maybe he breathed in too many 9/11 fumes?

[PimpDaddy]

They are going after Barr. It all makes sense.

She was on Ambien. Don't blame her.

[VinceBordenIII]

They are going after Barr. It all makes sense.

She was on Ambien. Don't blame her.

She wasn't the only one thinking it.

[Charliesheen]

If Trump played the game right he would be using the "intelligence community" for the wet work, like the Dims did. Since he's crossed them up, it's hands on.

[Charliesheen]

I wonder where the whistleblower was when the "intelligence community" was ginning up lies for the FISA court?

[AnalHamster]

The trump cucks are struggling with this one

[Antknot]

Impeach and remove if proven. Not really much to spin here, chief

Yesterday you were saying you saw nothing wrong, now you say remove him from office if it's proven. Kinda seems like something to see then, no?

Your bias is affecting your logic.

The two statements do not contradict one another, neither do they indicate a shift in position.

I would have worded the second as: I’m tired of the constant “Trumps in trouble” so prove it and get a conviction and get rid of him or shut the fuck up.