ADVERTISEMENT

Well

Crazyhole

Todd's Tiki Bar
Jun 4, 2004
23,824
9,585
113
The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name | RealClearInvestigations
https://www.realclearinvestigations...biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

So the whistle blower is a CIA operative with ties to people in the Obama administration and Clinton campaign who worked with Ukranians to undermine the Trump campaign, and also sent interoffice memos to create the russian collusion dossier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS and UCFWayne
The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name | RealClearInvestigations
https://www.realclearinvestigations...biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

So the whistle blower is a CIA operative with ties to people in the Obama administration and Clinton campaign who worked with Ukranians to undermine the Trump campaign, and also sent interoffice memos to create the russian collusion dossier.
We leaking whistle blowers names now? Predictable.
 
I'm just curious if Crazyhole has the balls to actually make the point that his post is implying. Please crazyhole (Who is not a conspiracy theorist but is actually an open minded political free thinker) enlighten us on why you made this thread.
 
If he is the Whistleblower, which should be taken with a big grain of salt at this point, unless you can dispute what actually happened, then why does it matter? Whether or not Trump did the things he is accused of is the issue, not the person who brought it forward.
 
Given recent events, this obsession over the identity of the whistleblower is bizarre.

The whistleblower alleged crazy sh*t happened between Trump and the Ukrainians. Since the whistleblower report, numerous people involved have testified before Congress that crazy sh*t did indeed happen between Trump and the Ukranians.

So we're to believe the evil whistleblower who started this 'witch hunt' was politically-motivated to take down our beleaguered President by …. sharing a true story of an impeachable offense???!?
 
If he is the Whistleblower, which should be taken with a big grain of salt at this point, unless you can dispute what actually happened, then why does it matter? Whether or not Trump did the things he is accused of is the issue, not the person who brought it forward.

Try to discredit the source in an attempt to make the actual act irrelevant. GOP playbook 101.

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project
 
Last edited:
The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name | RealClearInvestigations
https://www.realclearinvestigations...biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

So the whistle blower is a CIA operative with ties to people in the Obama administration and Clinton campaign who worked with Ukranians to undermine the Trump campaign, and also sent interoffice memos to create the russian collusion dossier.
it will be interesting to see the whistle blower testify now
 
i was told by you and others the whistle blower and their testimony was extremely important.
Once-upon-a-time it was important. But Schiff's committee has since interviewed a number of people who were directly involved.

I was told by you and others that direct, first-hand accounts are what's really important, not heresay. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
 
Once-upon-a-time it was important. But Schiff's committee has since interviewed a number of people who were directly involved.

I was told by you and others that direct, first-hand accounts are what's really important, not heresay. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
you guys were calling for this months ago. what changed? either way im sure we get to hear the testimony now.

first hand accounts like the president of ukraine or does that not count?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
I'm just curious if Crazyhole has the balls to actually make the point that his post is implying. Please crazyhole (Who is not a conspiracy theorist but is actually an open minded political free thinker) enlighten us on why you made this thread.

The point is that the whistle blower has ties to people that trump wants Ukraine to investigate. That in and of itself should create question marks. He has a personal connection to people involved in corruption in ukraine and a concerted effort by the dnc/state dept/justice dept to undermine Trumps candidacy and presidency.
 
The point is that the whistle blower has ties to people that trump wants Ukraine to investigate. That in and of itself should create question marks. He has a personal connection to people involved in corruption in ukraine and a concerted effort by the dnc/state dept/justice dept to undermine Trumps candidacy and presidency.

You don't even know for sure this guy is the whistle blower, but secondly, a lot of people in Washington have connections to each other. But besides that, unless you think he is making it all up, which I cant see being the case with all of the stuff that has come out now, then why does it matter? The only way the actual whistleblower is an issue at this point, is if you choose to either ignore everyone else involved, or believe they are all liars as well and this is a full on conspiracy against the president.
 
Last edited:
I guess it's just a crazy coincidence that Trump asks Ukraines president to start investigating election collusion and Barr opens up a criminal investigation at the same time this guy decides to become a whistle blower. Also must be a coincidence that since he left the White House we don't get any leaks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I guess it's just a crazy coincidence that Trump asks Ukraines president to start investigating election collusion and Barr opens up a criminal investigation at the same time this guy decides to become a whistle blower. Also must be a coincidence that since he left the White House we don't get any leaks.

I don't understand your point. He (whoever it is) became a whistleblower when he thought there was wrong doing that people needed to know about. That isn't a coincidence, that is how whistleblowing works.

Do you think all of the other people who have now testified before congress are liars too? Is this a conspiracy against the president?
 
I don't understand your point. He (whoever it is) became a whistleblower when he thought there was wrong doing that people needed to know about. That isn't a coincidence, that is how whistleblowing works.

Do you think all of the other people who have now testified before congress are liars too? Is this a conspiracy against the president?

You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. This isn't just about Biden the political candidate or a quid pro quo. This is about people who broke the law finding out that they are going to be investigated by at least 4 different countries including our own. This guy was a political operative acting as a mole in the White House and when he found out that crimes were going to be investigated he went scorched earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. This isn't just about Biden the political candidate or a quid pro quo. This is about people who broke the law finding out that they are going to be investigated by at least 4 different countries including our own. This guy was a political operative acting as a mole in the White House and when he found out that crimes were going to be investigated he went scorched earth.

And the others who have testified? Are they all working together? A giant conspiracy?

I think you are the one not seeing the forest for the trees. You elected a guy who the entire world has known is a corrupt POS since at least the 1980s, but for some reason because he has the magic R by his name now, you ignore that, and now pretend some people, including a purple heart recipient, have concocted a conspiracy against him.
 
Conservatives are found of crackpot conspiracy theories. I have an online poker buddy who says all kinds of batsh*t crazy things on twitter.

He truly believes this is really all about a vast deep-State conspiracy that evil Hillary supporters kicked off back in 2016. He believes its a race against time for AG Barr to obtain evidence from abroad that will "blow the lid" off this whole business and "expose the Democrats."

I suppose I should mention that he also believes "Q" is real and that Michelle Obama is a tranny.
 
And the others who have testified? Are they all working together? A giant conspiracy?

I think you are the one not seeing the forest for the trees. You elected a guy who the entire world has known is a corrupt POS since at least the 1980s, but for some reason because he has the magic R by his name now, you ignore that, and now pretend some people, including a purple heart recipient, have concocted a conspiracy against him.

First of all, I didn't and never would vote for Trump. I'm a Republican in the vein of Ben Sasse and Rand Paul so I have very little affinity for the party as a whole and absolutely none for Trump. He's a disgusting man, period.

What I see here are a whole lot of things that havent added up for about 6 years but now it's starting to become clear. The focus on the phone call is all on investigating Biden because of the Burisma-Hunter connection for political purposes, but that wasn't the only thing Trump asked them to look in to. He also asked them to look into interference in the 2016 election. That's the part that ties this whole thing together and between this guy and Chalupa we have connections to people involved in the Trump tower wiretap, Russian interference in the election, the russia dossier, Biden, Obama, Brennan, Clinton, the DNC, and Comey along with Burisma and 2 billion dollars worth of aid that disappeared.

That's a conspiracy that not even Alex Jones could come up with.
 
First of all, I didn't and never would vote for Trump. I'm a Republican in the vein of Ben Sasse and Rand Paul so I have very little affinity for the party as a whole and absolutely none for Trump. He's a disgusting man, period.

What I see here are a whole lot of things that havent added up for about 6 years but now it's starting to become clear. The focus on the phone call is all on investigating Biden because of the Burisma-Hunter connection for political purposes, but that wasn't the only thing Trump asked them to look in to. He also asked them to look into interference in the 2016 election. That's the part that ties this whole thing together and between this guy and Chalupa we have connections to people involved in the Trump tower wiretap, Russian interference in the election, the russia dossier, Biden, Obama, Brennan, Clinton, the DNC, and Comey along with Burisma and 2 billion dollars worth of aid that disappeared.

That's a conspiracy that not even Alex Jones could come up with.

So you think it is a conspiracy. So should people like Vindman end up locked up?
 
So you think it is a conspiracy. So should people like Vindman end up locked up?
No. I see him as someone who is relaying information that needs to be relayed.

I'm not sure how anyone can deny the fact that there has been an effort to undermine both the trump candidacy and presidency. That isn't a conspiracy, we know it happened. Up until now it would have been easy to dismiss individual parts, but now it appears that there was a collective approach.
 
No. I see him as someone who is relaying information that needs to be relayed.

I'm not sure how anyone can deny the fact that there has been an effort to undermine both the trump candidacy and presidency. That isn't a conspiracy, we know it happened. Up until now it would have been easy to dismiss individual parts, but now it appears that there was a collective approach.

Now I am completely lost. So you think this is all a conspiracy more or less, but Vindman, who has said the President made concerning calls isn't part of the conspiracy and was actually relaying helpful information? What he relayed was information that has helped justify the impeachment process.

THis administration and his campaign gave plenty of reasons to be investigated for various things. It isn't undermining a presidency or campaign to conduct investigations. Even the Mueller report laid out more than enough to indicate it was at least an investigation worth having. And this current investigation has certainly laid out information that makes it a valid investigation. Again Republicans elected a guy who the entire world has known to be a corrupt guy for close to 40 years, but somehow when he appears to do shady things while in, office it is the Democrats fault for wanting to look into it.
 
Last edited:
The point is that the whistle blower has ties to people that trump wants Ukraine to investigate. That in and of itself should create question marks. He has a personal connection to people involved in corruption in ukraine and a concerted effort by the dnc/state dept/justice dept to undermine Trumps candidacy and presidency.

Ties to people Trump wanted to investigate LOL because he's a United States government employee and Trump wanted the previous vice president investigated?

Watch out now. It's the deep state at it again with

*checks notes*

verified documented conversations and accurate descriptions of quid pro quo as confirmed by the white house itself and half a dozen eye witnesses.

So his complaint was accurate but you don't like that he's a Democrat. Got it.
 
Now I am completely lost. So you think this is all a conspiracy more or less, but Vindman, who has said the President made concerning calls isn't part of the conspiracy and was actually relaying helpful information? What he relayed was information that has helped justify the impeachment process.

What part about multiple crimes don't you understand? Trump guilty doesn't mean democrats innocent and vice-versa. Trump could be guilty of using a quid-pro-quo to investigate crimes committed by others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
you guys were calling for this months ago. what changed? either way im sure we get to hear the testimony now.

first hand accounts like the president of ukraine or does that not count?
WhAt ChAnGeD?

It's literally in the post you quoted.
 
What part about multiple crimes don't you understand? Trump guilty doesn't mean democrats innocent and vice-versa. Trump could be guilty of using a quid-pro-quo to investigate crimes committed by others.

Ok, but if he is guilty of quid pro quo then he should be impeached yes? Which then means all of this is legitimate so you cant write it off as just Democrats trying to undermine his presidency.
 
This guy was a political operative acting as a mole in the White House.

Making sure the president doesn't get away with commiting F U C K I N G O B V I O U S crimes means you're a MOLE!!!!


It's worse than I though. The chuds believe that preventing the president from committing crime is treason.
 
Ok, but if he is guilty of quid pro quo then he should be impeached yes? Which then means all of this is legitimate so you cant write it off as just Democrats trying to undermine his presidency.
When did I ever write it off? I've been objective as I can be about the quid-pro-quo but I'm leaning towards believing that was his intent. The question on whether it is an impeachable offense hinges on whether or not what he asked Ukraine to investigate are actual crimes. If Biden wasn't a presidential candidate, it would be totally acceptable in almost every mind to look into possible ties to corruption. So why does Biden get a free pass from legitimately being potentially involved in something of this magnitude just because he's polling at 20%?

Just looking at this from a political standpoint, why would trump ask for a public announcement of an investigation into Biden at this point in the game? Seems like it would make more sense to wait until its closer to the election and keep your October surprise in your back pocket.
 
Making sure the president doesn't get away with commiting F U C K I N G O B V I O U S crimes means you're a MOLE!!!!


It's worse than I though. The chuds believe that preventing the president from committing crime is treason.

I have to admit, I admire your commitment to believing the world is black and white. Granted, its led to you showing your ass so many times that its embarrassing but there's something about being so basic that's kind of endearing.

I'm sure Jussie appreciates your continued support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
When did I ever write it off? I've been objective as I can be about the quid-pro-quo but I'm leaning towards believing that was his intent. The question on whether it is an impeachable offense hinges on whether or not what he asked Ukraine to investigate are actual crimes. If Biden wasn't a presidential candidate, it would be totally acceptable in almost every mind to look into possible ties to corruption. So why does Biden get a free pass from legitimately being potentially involved in something of this magnitude just because he's polling at 20%?

Just looking at this from a political standpoint, why would trump ask for a public announcement of an investigation into Biden at this point in the game? Seems like it would make more sense to wait until its closer to the election and keep your October surprise in your back pocket.

So what the hell is this supposed to mean then?

I'm not sure how anyone can deny the fact that there has been an effort to undermine both the trump candidacy and presidency. That isn't a conspiracy, we know it happened. Up until now it would have been easy to dismiss individual parts, but now it appears that there was a collective approach.

You are implying this is a conspiracy against the president. If it is legitimate, then how is it also a conspiracy? You are trying to have this both ways. So let me just straight up ask, do you think believe the impeachment inquiry is legitimate, or do you think it is just Democrats undermining his presidency?
 
Last edited:
So what the hell is this supposed to mean then?

I'm not sure how anyone can deny the fact that there has been an effort to undermine both the trump candidacy and presidency. That isn't a conspiracy, we know it happened. Up until now it would have been easy to dismiss individual parts, but now it appears that there was a collective approach.

You are literally saying this is a conspiracy against the president. If it is legitimate, then how is it also a conspiracy? You are trying to have this both ways. So let me just straight up ask, do you think believe the impeachment inquiry is legitimate, or do you think it is just Democrats undermining his presidency?

Straight up, yes I believe the impeachment inquiry is valid. Trump pursuing a quid-pro-quo doesn't mean that he's the only one that did something wrong. Why is this so hard to understand?

Since Trump is such a minion of Russia, why didn't he ask Putin to investigate Biden or election interference on behalf of Clinton? Hint: it's because there was a heck of a lot of stuff going on with Ukraine and US officials that have relationships with them.
 

You are implying this is a conspiracy against the president. If it is legitimate, then how is it also a conspiracy? You are trying to have this both ways.
I think I can clear up the confusion here.

I'm guessing part of the left-wing, Anti-Trump conspiracy involves using State-of-the-art mind control to get our Commander-in-Chief to lie non-stop and do really dumbass, self-defeating things.
 
Straight up, yes I believe the impeachment inquiry is valid. Trump pursuing a quid-pro-quo doesn't mean that he's the only one that did something wrong. Why is this so hard to understand?

Since Trump is such a minion of Russia, why didn't he ask Putin to investigate Biden or election interference on behalf of Clinton? Hint: it's because there was a heck of a lot of stuff going on with Ukraine and US officials that have relationships with them.

It isn't hard to understand, nobody said it was hard to understand. It just doesn't have anything to do with the impeachment inquiry. Your posts are confusing because they seem be downplaying this whole thing on one hand, but then acknowledging it is legit on the other hand.
 
It isn't hard to understand, nobody said it was hard to understand. It just doesn't have anything to do with the impeachment inquiry. Your posts are confusing because they seem be downplaying this whole thing on one hand, but then acknowledging it is legit on the other hand.

It has everything to do with the basis of the impeachment inquiry.
 
It has everything to do with the basis of the impeachment inquiry.

No, it doesn't. Even if you think Biden or Democrats did something wrong, Trump didn't have to go about it the way he (allegedly) did. The impeachment inquiry is because of Trump's actions, not Biden's or Democrats.
 
So funny the same idiots demanding we care about RUSSIA INTERFERENCE!!! are the same people who collectively yawn at everyone involved in pushing the Kremlin disinformation dossier to the DNC that was eventually used by the CIA and FBI against Trump
 
Just looking at this from a political standpoint, why would trump ask for a public announcement of an investigation into Biden at this point in the game? Seems like it would make more sense to wait until its closer to the election and keep your October surprise in your back pocket.

Take of your shit stained glasses and think about what you just typed.

Trump required the ukranian president make a public statement that he was opening an investigation.

It had to be public because he wanted the media to run with it. He didn't think he'd be outed for requesting it. If he was only concerned about stopping corruption he wouldn't have required a public statement.

Why didn't he wait until closer to the election?

Because he was using foreign aid as leverage to get what he wanted and Ukraine can't go another year without aid.

You love to ask vague questions that imply a deep state conspiracy but you don't pay attention when there are simple obvious answers since your preference is for trump to be innocent.
 
Take of your shit stained glasses and think about what you just typed.

Trump required the ukranian president make a public statement that he was opening an investigation.

It had to be public because he wanted the media to run with it. He didn't think he'd be outed for requesting it. If he was only concerned about stopping corruption he wouldn't have required a public statement.

Why didn't he wait until closer to the election?

Because he was using foreign aid as leverage to get what he wanted and Ukraine can't go another year without aid.

You love to ask vague questions that imply a deep state conspiracy but you don't pay attention when there are simple obvious answers since your preference is for trump to be innocent.

This dumbass talking point misses 2 small facts:

- Ukraine aid was turned on before this entire story even broke
- Ukraine aid was turned on without any public announcement or otherwise

Also I thought the "blackmail" piece was the visit to the WH. Now you're saying it actually was military aid. I guess the talking points are hard to stick by when you're going off things that Adam Dirtbag Schiff hand selectively gives you to outrage over.
 
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they're easy to create by drawing connections between things. These can be highly compelling arguments even when there's no basis. I think a good example is data mining. If you mine a large set of data for correlations at say 95% confidence, then by definition, 5% of the correlations you find are false positives. So you dig through a data set and identify any-and-every possible connection that supports a pre-conceived hypothesis and string those together while ignoring all the other data that counteracts the hypothesis, or holes in the data that shouldn't be there.

Yet, they're almost impossible to disprove. I'm not saying the Whistelblower lacks bias or an agenda. Welcome to DC right? But identifying data points like "he was invited to a dinner that included Brennan, Comey, and Clapper" as notable information? When he worked in the White House for the CIA? I mean come on.That's like saying "former Burger King employee frequently attended events organized by Burger King while working at Burger King."

You guys familar with Bob Lazar? He's the guy that worked at Area 51 and claims a bunch of crazy alien stuff. His claims are non-verifiable. If you're going to believe his story, then you're going to need to assess his credibility.

If the Whistleblower was making Bob Lazar type claims - non-verifiable based on personal experience - then all this stuff matters because the entire case hinges on the credibility of the Whistleblower. But that's not what's happening here. You can question his motives and affiliations all you want, but his credibility is essentially irrelevant to the facts. So if you want to say this is a smart play politically to shoot the messenger - OK it probably is. But if you want to participate in a fact-based discussion on the merits of impeaching a President based on the facts as we know them, I think it's irrelevant.
 
ADVERTISEMENT