REPORT: 'Whistleblower' Who Complained About Trump's Call to Ukrainian President Zelensky Revealed

[bambino]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And once again I have to ask -- what proof do you have to back up your statement that "Clinton didn't care if it was fake or not, as long as it was something she could use."

You've got nothing but your opinion.

She used it. Even her own State Dept knew it was bogus. Stay tuned, let’s see if anyone gets indicted for using it in the FISA court. She never condemned it as false information did she?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Does it matter to you that Clinton HERSELF didn't ask someone to "make up fake information"? Or is that how you wish to word the statement to provide yourself with "cover" and an "out"?

If someone on her behalf found some bullshit on Trump and she authorized the bullshit to be released to the HUNGRY anti-Trump media without verifying the accuracy, reliability, and authenticity of the vile statements about Trump .... then it really doesn't make any difference that she didn't ask someone to fabricated the bullshit, now does it?

Is that the kind of person you want to be POTUS? Recklessly publishes and/or causes to be published fabricated information?

Her former boss was bad enough ....

Again, the question is whether or not Clinton asked for "fake" information about Trump. No one seems to be able to answer that question without moving the discussion in other directions.

There is a limit as to how far I would expect anyone, politician or otherwise, to double-check information given. If the person is a trusted individual who has always provided excellent information, I would continue to trust that individual. If I read the information supplied and it sounded viable, I would run with it. If I read it and it sounded like "bullshit" I would double-check the information. Since I have not read the Steele Dossier, I have not idea how fake or real it sounded.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bambino

She used it. Even her own State Dept knew it was bogus. Stay tuned, let’s see if anyone gets indicted for using it in the FISA court. She never condemned it as false information did she?

Yes, we shall see. Some on this forum have predicted a disaster for Democrats. We shall see.

But to be honest I'd rather focus on the subject of the thread -- the whistle-blower and the impeachment process underway. For some reason the discussion continues to be dragged in other directions.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again, the question is whether or not Clinton asked for "fake" information about Trump. No one seems to be able to answer that question without moving the discussion in other directions.

There is a limit as to how far I would expect anyone, politician or otherwise, to double-check information given. If the person is a trusted individual who has always provided excellent information, I would continue to trust that individual. If I read the information supplied and it sounded viable, I would run with it. If I read it and it sounded like "bullshit" I would double-check the information. Since I have not read the Steele Dossier, I have not idea how fake or real it sounded.

two words. pee tape. how viable did that sound?


you don't seem to get it. it didn't matter if it was fake or not, they needed something to use to spy on Trump's campaign. it's a fact that the FISA warrants never would have been granted without it. Comey has said so under oath. the first attempt was rejected without the Steele dossier. so they used the Steele dossier, unverified, and did not disclose to the court it was political opposition research. that's part of the requirements.


the renewed FISA warrants have been ruled as illegal. the original warrant will also be ruled illegal. using fake info as a smear campaign in politics is standard ops. using it to spy on a candidate by the sitting administration to benefit the rival candidate of the same party is collusion and treason.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

two words. pee tape. how viable did that sound?

you don't seem to get it. it didn't matter if it was fake or not, they needed something to use to spy on Trump's campaign. it's a fact that the FISA warrants never would have been granted without it. Comey has said so under oath. the first attempt was rejected without the Steele dossier. so they used the Steele dossier, unverified, and did not disclose to the court it was political opposition research. that's part of the requirements.

the renewed FISA warrants have been ruled as illegal. the original warrant will also be ruled illegal. using fake info as a smear campaign in politics is standard ops. using it to spy on a candidate by the sitting administration to benefit the rival candidate of the same party is collusion and treason.

I do get it. The only statement I've objected to is Bambino's statement in post #62 in which he claims Clinton paid for fake dirt. And anyone else who asserts that. No proof at all that that is true. I have not commented on the Steele Dossier or the FISA warrants.

Maybe now we can move back to the subject of the thread.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again, the question is whether or not Clinton asked for "fake" information about Trump.

Actually, that's YOUR question. And it's irrelevant.

But so are you!

Did Trump ask the Russians to help him defeat HillariousNoMore?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually, that's YOUR question. And it's irrelevant.

But so are you!

Did Trump ask the Russians to help him defeat HillariousNoMore?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

..... he claims Clinton paid for fake dirt.

The funds to pay for the "fake dirt" came from her campaign.

He's not the only one .... so does the FBI!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...steele-n897506

Steele, a former MI6 operative who opened a private firm, compiled the Trump dossier during the 2016 presidential campaign under contract to the U.S. research firm Fusion GPS.

Fusion had been hired to get information on Trump during the primaries by a Republican media firm, Washington Free Beacon. When Trump became the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party began picking up the tab for the Fusion research. Fusion owner Glenn Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, to gather information from his sources in Russia.

The same FBI that was under the control of the Obaminable Administration in the same Justice Department undermining the Trump Administration before Trump was even sworn .... and the same Justice Department led by the person HillariousNoMore's predator husband met privately on her plane parked on the tarmac. Now ... you can disbelieve it because you don't want to believe that the slime-ball Clintons would do such a thing .... What did they do to Bernie?

"nbcnews"

[bambino]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I do get it. The only statement I've objected to is Bambino's statement in post #62 in which he claims Clinton paid for fake dirt. And anyone else who asserts that. No proof at all that that is true. I have not commented on the Steele Dossier or the FISA warrants.

Maybe now we can move back to the subject of the thread.

You can play naive, gullible and stupid all you want. The fact of the matter IS Hillary paid for fake dirt. To the tune of 12 million. The money was funneled thru her law firm Perkins/Couey. Then to Fusion GPS. I wonder how they settled on 12 million dollars. That’s big money. Only Hillary could have approved that kind of expenditure.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have 2 rather simple questions:

1. Should the allegations made by the whistle-blower not be investigated?

2. IF, and I stress the word "IF", President Trump sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to launch investigations that he believed would help him in the 2020 election by withholding funds allocated to the Ukraine by Congress, would you consider this to be a violation of his oath of office?

Not looking for arguments. If anyone answers "YES" and "NO", I have no problem with those responses. If anyone wants to expound on their responses, feel free to do so.

1) No. It should not have even been reported. The WB didn't have first hand knowledge. The form was modified after it was rejected the first time to accommodate it.

2) First tell me where in US law the phrase "sought to pressure" exists. Not "pressure" or "pressured" but "sought to pressure". BTW, the funds were released. The Ukrainian President didn't know he was being "sought to pressure."

[Whisky_1]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Name one thing he's done in "foreign policy" that is outside of his "constitutional powers"! As difficult as it may be for you, please be specific with a close month and year along with the specific facts of the actions he took in that month and year. Thank you!

A reference of a FACTUAL NEWS STORY would be helpful as well as opposed to an OP-Ed piece making up some bullshit about the FACTS .... and then speculating as to what may have happened.

Read the all the posted responses to Ms Ellen's question then read the US Constitution and see if you can connect the dots. For goodness sake man, keep up. It's almost as if you live in a fantasy world. I am not accepting homework assignments from you.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Whisky_1

Read the all the posted responses to Ms Ellen's question then read the US Constitution and see if you can connect the dots. For goodness sake man, keep up. It's almost as if you live in a fantasy world. I am not accepting homework assignments from you.

Ha!

Newly released Mueller memos detail early Trump campaign efforts to push Ukraine conspiracy theory at center of impeachment inquiry

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Whisky_1

Read the all the posted responses to Ms Ellen's question then read the US Constitution and see if you can connect the dots. For goodness sake man, keep up. It's almost as if you live in a fantasy world. I am not accepting homework assignments from you.

if you say so Vincent van Bat.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Ha!

Newly released Mueller memos detail early Trump campaign efforts to push Ukraine conspiracy theory at center of impeachment inquiry

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAA


nothing burger 3.0

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again, there is no evidence to support the accusation that Clinton asked for FAKE information.

Well then, she was stupid enough to believe any dirt on Trump she obtained from Putin would be trustworthy, accurate and reliable.

Got it!

Poor gal didn't learn much during her 4 years as Secretary of State, did she?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Don't you hate it when everyone gets the joke except the lib-retard in the room?





"In other words, a wisecrack any of us might have made (though hopefully a presidential candidate wouldn’t) playing off the insecurity of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices as well as the press’s hypocritical eagerness to traffic in Russian leaks."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...et-11571784745