Ukraine Hoax Revealed

[gatomontes99]

Just The News: Impeachment Bombshell: Secret memos expose Ukraine accuser’s bias, hearsay, and false claim

In that article, declassified notes detail that the whistleblower hated Trump and his staff, lied about his knowledge of the event and only had hearsay information. The entire Ukraine Impeachment scandal was a hoax. Whole thing. 

Famed Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says he believes President Donald Trump could have grounds to expunge his 2019 impeachment in the House after bombshell new evidence revealed the intelligence community failed to disclose that his main accuser had the potential for bias, made a false statement and only had hearsay to back up his allegations.

 

[Barquentine]

Alan Dershowitz is a Trump lackey who even thinks Trump should have a third term. Talk about bias!

[John Stone]

Iran-Israel-US er, war ................. excursion, er...police action, make the World safe ........... for the US.

 Dershowitz isn't Swedish.

Perfect timing. 

Edited April 15 by John Stone

[gatomontes99]

59 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Alan Dershowitz is a Trump lackey who even thinks Trump should have a third term. Talk about bias!

 

42 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Iran-Israel-US er, war ................. excursion, er...police action, make the World safe ........... for the US.

 Dershowitz isn't Swedish.

Perfect timing. 

Couldn't refute the info so you had to attack the commentator?

Brilliantly stùpid.

Dershowitz was a Democrat until the antisemitism in the party drove him out. 

I am not surprised that either of you can't refute that the whistleblower was a Trump hater (like you), lied about what he saw, and they changed the rules just to make the whistleblower complaint seem legitimate. The whole thing was a lie. And yet, here you are, in the face of the truth, attacking a Democrat that isn't a Democrat because the hatred of the left drove him away. 

Brilliantly stùpid.  It is brilliant because you drove home the entire point of the thread. The thread is about how Trump hatred drove the Ukraine hoax. You perfectly illustrated that. It was stùpid because you unwittingly did provide a perfect example of Trump hatred all while thinking you actually did something here. 

[John Stone]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

Couldn't refute the info so you had to attack the commentator?

Brilliantly stùpid.

Dershowitz was a Democrat until the antisemitism in the party drove him out. 

I am not surprised that either of you can't refute that the whistleblower was a Trump hater (like you), lied about what he saw, and they changed the rules just to make the whistleblower complaint seem legitimate. The whole thing was a lie. And yet, here you are, in the face of the truth, attacking a Democrat that isn't a Democrat because the hatred of the left drove him away. 

Brilliantly stùpid.  It is brilliant because you drove home the entire point of the thread. The thread is about how Trump hatred drove the Ukraine hoax. You perfectly illustrated that. It was stùpid because you unwittingly did provide a perfect example of Trump hatred all while thinking you actually did something here. 

.................let's just say a better herald should have been found??

I don't hate Trump, I  consider him a increasingly senile ,lying,  incompetent, dangerous, corrupt, grifter, blasphemous, misogynist, 4x indicted (criminal charges),   twice impeached 80 y/o, POTUS!(gasp)

That's not just my opinion tho, it's the global opinion. 

I'd welcome any so-called re-investigation - " let sleeping dogs lay'

no  way! please no! 

Bring it! 

 

[WestCanMan]

What have CNN or the Dems said in the past 20 years that wasn't a lie?

[Deluge]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Alan Dershowitz is a Trump lackey who even thinks Trump should have a third term. Talk about bias!

Trump's too old for a third term but I'd give it to him if he were 10 years younger. Just goes to show how shallow your candidate pool is - in fact it's pretty f*cking dry. lol

[Legato]

1 hour ago, John Stone said:

.................let's just say a better herald should have been found??

I don't hate Trump, I  consider him a increasingly senile ,lying,  incompetent, dangerous, corrupt, grifter, blasphemous, misogynist, 4x indicted (criminal charges),   twice impeached 80 y/o, POTUS!(gasp)

That's not just my opinion tho, it's the global opinion. 

I'd welcome any so-called re-investigation - " let sleeping dogs lay'

no  way! please no! 

Bring it! 

 

That's odd, I mistakenly had the impression that you hated Trump.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Alan Dershowitz is a Trump lackey who even thinks Trump should have a third term. Talk about bias!

Ahhh...we see once again that the Libbies lied and schemed like the unconscionable little dweebs they are.

Time certainly is not a Libbie ally.

Edited April 15 by Nationalist

[John Stone]

23 minutes ago, Legato said:

That's odd, I mistakenly had the impression that you hated Trump.

concur - ur odd! 🤣

[Legato]

5 minutes ago, John Stone said:

concur - ur odd! 🤣

Why thank you!

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Alan Dershowitz is a Trump lackey who even thinks Trump should have a third term. Talk about bias!

Go look up the word lackey... You clearly don't know what it means.

FYI Rosemary Barton is a "lackey": she carries the mail for known grifters and traitors. Ditto for Schumer, Pelosi, CNN, CBC et al.

Dershowitz is a lifelong Democrat supporter who's merely relating facts that trigger your confirmation bias. 

/lesson

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Dershowitz is a lifelong Democrat supporter who's merely relating facts that trigger your confirmation bias. 

Although having some dealings with Trump (he represented Trump during his first impeachment trial), Dershowitz has been a vocal critic of Trump.

Dershowitz also spent a lot of time at Epstein Island.  Like a LOT.

The email dump has a lot of.....errrr.....rather sketchily worded emails between Dershowitz & Epstein.

[WestCanMan]

17 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Although having some dealings with Trump (he represented Trump during his first impeachment trial), Dershowitz has been a vocal critic of Trump.

Dershowitz also spent a lot of time at Epstein Island.  Like a LOT.

The email dump has a lot of.....errrr.....rather sketchily worded emails between Dershowitz & Epstein.

Sketchy, as in, incriminating? 

[Goddess]

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Sketchy, as in, incriminating? 

Not sketchy unless you and your friend group have been emailing for years to talk extensively about pizza and grape soda.......  then it's completely normal.

[Hodad]

Sorry to throw cold water on your circle jerk, but what's got you all hot and bothered is half false and half bullshit. 

Literally, the original whistleblower complaint clearly stated that it was second hand information. This is not secret or new news.

And whistleblower protection has always included hearsay. There was no secret rule change. -- And, by the way, this is also the standard anywhere in corporate America. 

And internal communications evaluating and debating the quality of the complaint are not nefarious. Rather, it's an example of the process working exactly as it should. 

And none of it changes the fact that Trump tried to trade weapons and aid for campaign aid from a foreign official. As always, Trump selling out America and Americans for his own personal gain. 

Edited April 16 by Hodad

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

Not sketchy unless you and your friend group have been emailing for years to talk extensively about pizza and grape soda.......  then it's completely normal.

They're both pre-eminent in their field, and they are both Jews from NY. The social circles they ran in would overlap, and be tight AF. Their wives and children would know each other. They would be expected to hire each other's children if possible. That's just how religion and power work together.

As a confidence man, for Epstein to establish a rapport with and have a publicly recognized friendship with a high-profile  Democrat and nationally recognized lawyer like Dershowitz would go a long way to lending him instant credibility with investors and clients. In Epstein's line of work, flashing your rolodex and dropping names is worth tens of millions of dollars. 

As is the case with Trump, and even Clinton, it's possible that AD never laid eyes on an underage girl in a bikini when he was with Epstein. It's not like he could just tell every single person he knew: "I can get some underage hookers here for you to bang." That would just be stupid. He had to have some squeaky clean guys around to pump up his image. 

At this point, I'm gonna find it really hard to believe any accusations coming out of the Epstein files. They've had so much time to sif through, redact, omit, negotiate, etc, that the list of accused will be the exact same as the list of deceased, powerless, and unpopular. Gavin Newsom and JD Vance could be in videos having sex with underage girls and no one will ever know. It's just the Swallwells, Gonzalezes and Franklins who are gonna be named. 

I thought that Dershowitz might get singled out, as he doesn't have a lot of conservative friends yet and the Dems hate him, but maybe they have nothing on him. 

Edited April 16 by WestCanMan

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

At this point, I'm gonna find it really hard to believe any accusations coming out of the Epstein files.

I agree to an extent.

It's the ones who had and kept a tight friendship with Epstein, even after he was convicted of procuring minors for the purposes of prostitution that make me wonder.

That would end a friendship for me.

But I'm a "loon", apparently.  🤣

 

[gatomontes99]

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Sorry to throw cold water on your circle jerk, but what's got you all hot and bothered is half false and half bullshit. 

Literally, the original whistleblower complaint clearly stated that it was second hand information. This is not secret or new news.

 No, the original complaint claimed first hand knowledge. They discovered it was second and third hand knowledge and confronted the whistleblower. The whistleblower confessed. So they changed the form to allow hearsay. 

16 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And whistleblower protection has always included hearsay. There was no secret rule change. -- And, by the way, this is also the standard anywhere in corporate America. 

No. Hearsay was not whistleblower eligible. And this is not corporate America. 

15 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And none of it changes the fact that Trump tried to trade weapons and aid for campaign aid from a foreign official. As always, Trump selling out America and Americans for his own personal gain. 

No he did not. 

[Hodad]

23 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

 No, the original complaint claimed first hand knowledge. They discovered it was second and third hand knowledge and confronted the whistleblower.

Goddamn, man. Stop lying for a second and have a smidgen of decency.  This is from YOUR OWN OP:
“I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications by the President,” the alleged whistleblower, who claimed Trump improperly tried to pressure Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Hunter Biden, admitted in his initial August 2019 intake form.

Do you not read the shit you post? Or do you think other people won't bother? -- You're apparently right on the latter, because we're a dozen posts in of just your buddies spanking it without anyone calling you on your bullshit. 

Quote

The whistleblower confessed. So they changed the form to allow hearsay. 

No. Hearsay was not whistleblower eligible. And this is not corporate America. 

 

Again, complete bullshit.
1. The law, passed in 1998 specifically allows for second hand information. 

2. The "original" form also specifically allowed whistleblowers to specify how they had received the information. Note the second option:
“I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; “Other employees have told me about events or records involved”; or “Other source(s) (please explain).”

3. The "they" you think are in on this nonexistent conspiracy is the Trump administration.

As usual, you are just parroting the crap politicians say to Fox hosts. Not a bit of these accusations are new or revelatory, and most of them are pure fiction. No basis in fact whatsoever. 
 

Quote

No he did not. 

He absolutely farking did, you cultist. It's not even a question. The almost-transcript was bad enough, validating everything in the whistleblower complaint and the testimony from Trump's own people was utterly and unequivocally damning. Read the congressional record.

Gordon Sondland (Trump's EU ambassador): "I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

"I told Mr. Yermak that I believed that the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks" (<-- he explicitly told Ukraine the conditions of the quid-pro-quo!)

(and everybody knew about it.)
"In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came
to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public
statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and
Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo
regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson, and I also shared my concerns with
the Ukrainians.
Finally, at all times I was acting in good faith -- I was acting in good faith. As a
Presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the President. We worked with Mr.
Giuliani because the President directed us to do so."

William Taylor (the top diplomat in Ukraine): "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Context: Ambassador Taylor also described a comment that you (Sondland) made where you were trying to explain what President Trump's view of this was. And you said that President Trump is a businessman, when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks the person to pay up before signing the check. (Pay up = publicly announcing an investigation.)

 

 

Although, really, I don't know why I bother. If you're not reading the articles you post, you damn sure aren't going to read the congressional record. -- Google any of that however you like. Facts are facts. Trump was withholding military aid to extract campaign favors from Ukraine. Everybody knew it. The case was overwhelming. The ONLY reason Trump wasn't convicted is because Senate Republicans utterly failed in their responsibility to the American people, choosing partisan protection instead of doing their damn job.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Goddamn, man. Stop lying for a second and have a smidgen of decency.  This is from YOUR OWN OP:
“I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications by the President,” the alleged whistleblower, who claimed Trump improperly tried to pressure Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Hunter Biden, admitted in his initial August 2019 intake form.

Do you not read the shit you post? Or do you think other people won't bother? -- You're apparently right on the latter, because we're a dozen posts in of just your buddies spanking it without anyone calling you on your bullshit. 

Again, complete bullshit.
1. The law, passed in 1998 specifically allows for second hand information. 

2. The "original" form also specifically allowed whistleblowers to specify how they had received the information. Note the second option:
“I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; “Other employees have told me about events or records involved”; or “Other source(s) (please explain).”

3. The "they" you think are in on this nonexistent conspiracy is the Trump administration.

As usual, you are just parroting the crap politicians say to Fox hosts. Not a bit of these accusations are new or revelatory, and most of them are pure fiction. No basis in fact whatsoever. 
 

He absolutely farking did, you cultist. It's not even a question. The almost-transcript was bad enough, validating everything in the whistleblower complaint and the testimony from Trump's own people was utterly and unequivocally damning. Read the congressional record.

Gordon Sondland (Trump's EU ambassador): "I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

"I told Mr. Yermak that I believed that the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks" (<-- he explicitly told Ukraine the conditions of the quid-pro-quo!)

(and everybody knew about it.)
"In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came
to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public
statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and
Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo
regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson, and I also shared my concerns with
the Ukrainians.
Finally, at all times I was acting in good faith -- I was acting in good faith. As a
Presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the President. We worked with Mr.
Giuliani because the President directed us to do so."

William Taylor (the top diplomat in Ukraine): "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Context: Ambassador Taylor also described a comment that you (Sondland) made where you were trying to explain what President Trump's view of this was. And you said that President Trump is a businessman, when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks the person to pay up before signing the check. (Pay up = publicly announcing an investigation.)

 

 

Although, really, I don't know why I bother. If you're not reading the articles you post, you damn sure aren't going to read the congressional record. -- Google any of that however you like. Facts are facts. Trump was withholding military aid to extract campaign favors from Ukraine. Everybody knew it. The case was overwhelming. The ONLY reason Trump wasn't convicted is because Senate Republicans utterly failed in their responsibility to the American people, choosing partisan protection instead of doing their damn job.

^This is what happens when they resurrect a years old story and hope everyone forgot about what happened. 💡

I know I did. 

[gatomontes99]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

Goddamn, man. Stop lying for a second and have a smidgen of decency.  This is from YOUR OWN OP:
“I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications by the President,” the alleged whistleblower, who claimed Trump improperly tried to pressure Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Hunter Biden, admitted in his initial August 2019 intake form.

"That stunning line on the limitations of the whistleblower's knowledge was not included in the nine-page letter then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., released in late summer 2019 that touched off a months-long political maelstrom and led to Trump's impeachment by a Democrat-led House and his eventual acquittal in the Senate."

 

[Barquentine]

20 hours ago, Deluge said:

Just goes to show how shallow your candidate pool is - in fact it's pretty f*cking dry. lol

I assume you're talking about the Republicans.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

"That stunning line on the limitations of the whistleblower's knowledge was not included in the nine-page letter then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., released in late summer 2019 that touched off a months-long political maelstrom and led to Trump's impeachment by a Democrat-led House and his eventual acquittal in the Senate."

 

So farking what?

THIS is what you claimed: and NONE of it is true. Every point false. And all of it was known and discussed in 2019.
 

Quote

 No, the original complaint claimed first hand knowledge. [FALSE] They discovered it was second and third hand knowledge and confronted the whistleblower. [FALSE] The whistleblower confessed. {FALSE] So they changed the form to allow hearsay. [FALSE]

Jeebus. Man up.

Edited April 16 by Hodad

[LinkSoul60]

13 hours ago, Goddess said:

But I'm a "loon", apparently.

I agree.