Ukraine Corruption

[lardy]

First of all - google 'whistleblowers protection USA and then 'threats against whistleblower Trump'.

Then imagine how worthwhile it would be to hear this:

"Hi everyone, I'm Johnny Whistleblower. I overheard a conversation between members of staff regarding the President abusing his power in office by withholding approved military aid to try to get a foreign nation to investigate a political rival... in order to personally gain an advantage for the President. All of the information that I provided led to investigations and witnesses confirming said information, that the President attempted to convince the Ukrainian head of state to investigate his political opponent by withholding $400m that was approved by congress... but don't worry about those facts, ask me about whether I voted for Al Gore".

Can you see how ridiculous that is? (likely a redundant question).

Also... the Republicans in the senate haven't agreed to allow witnesses in the trial. Why do you think that is? Do innocent people forbid witnesses from proving their innocence?

Yes, all of lifeonmars' concerns have been addressed one way or another weeks ago.

Not a direct witness to the phone call? The WH have released the transcript and Vindman was on the call and gave testimony.

Political allegiance? Sondland is US ambassador to the EU because he was a massive Trump donor, and he gave testimony.

Was informed of what happened, that's a bit weak and any lawyer would shoot him down: Yes Rumpole, that's why there's no point in him giving any further testimony.


Lifeonmars, if you're worried about people not giving testimony, wonder why Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and many other very involved characters aren't giving theirs. Which ties into...

"what I dont, get why bring new evidence to the for now ,surely they had it already , it cant just have popped out of nowhere, of course witnesses should be allowed," - there are plenty of holes in the narrative, new evidence/witnesses/testimony would fill them. They didn't have it already as the above names haven't spoken and the Lev Parnas business was under a court's lock and key at the time.

Now another question for you to ponder is: if Trump did nothing wrong, why is he so desperate to stop anyone talking?

[Wales-Bales]

Yes, all of lifeonmars' concerns have been addressed one way or another weeks ago.

Not a direct witness to the phone call? The WH have released the transcript and Vindman was on the call and gave testimony.

Political allegiance? Sondland is US ambassador to the EU because he was a massive Trump donor, and he gave testimony.

Was informed of what happened, that's a bit weak and any lawyer would shoot him down: Yes Rumpole, that's why there's no point in him giving any further testimony.


Lifeonmars, if you're worried about people not giving testimony, wonder why Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and many other very involved characters aren't giving theirs. Which ties into...

"what I dont, get why bring new evidence to the for now ,surely they had it already , it cant just have popped out of nowhere, of course witnesses should be allowed," - there are plenty of holes in the narrative, new evidence/witnesses/testimony would fill them. They didn't have it already as the above names haven't spoken and the Lev Parnas business was under a court's lock and key at the time.

Now another question for you to ponder is: if Trump did nothing wrong, why is he so desperate to stop anyone talking?

Are you Rachael Maddow in disguise? Don't forget she's has a history of leading you astray