Whistleblower Lawyer Mark Zaid Tweeted

[Blondee15]

back in 2017

one of the attorneys representing the whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately

Multiple Tweets in the following months outlined how they were going to lead a coup to bring Trump down

You would think Washington DC Lawyers would be smarter than to put stuff like that out for the world to read

 

[millerbleach]

Conspiracy theory with no support.......Trump though.......we know what he meant, it doesn't matter what he said.

 

[Neutron Monster]

What does this have to do with the credibility of what is in the whistleblower's report, since it has effectively all been confirmed by the interviews?

The reason they are focusing on things like this is because they can't rebut the substance of what was in the report because it is true.

 

[millerbleach]

What does this have to do with the credibility of what is in the whistleblower's report, since it has effectively all been confirmed by the interviews?

The reason they are focusing on things like this is because they can't rebut the substance of what was in the report because it is true.

It would seem reasonable that the "whistleblower" is part of a group attempting to take down the President rather than a concerned citizen.
I have yet to see anyone show or say that Trump said "if you don't do this (find dirt on my opponent) you won't get this". Everyone that even gets close has to put qualifiers on their statements. Everyone that has testified (what little is known) has said they took it a certain way or thought it could have meant. Trumps explanation is just as reasonable though and he is the only expert on what his intentions were since he knows what they were without speculating.
You or I or even those testifying may think we know what he was doing or meant but, there is no proof of it that i've seen.

 

[Neutron Monster]

It would seem reasonable that the "whistleblower" is part of a group attempting to take down the President rather than a concerned citizen.
I have yet to see anyone show or say that Trump said "if you don't do this (find dirt on my opponent) you won't get this". Everyone that even gets close has to put qualifiers on their statements. Everyone that has testified (what little is known) has said they took it a certain way or thought it could have meant. Trumps explanation is just as reasonable though and he is the only expert on what his intentions were since he knows what they were without speculating.
You or I or even those testifying may think we know what he was doing or meant but, there is no proof of it that i've seen.

The whistleblower is like a tipster who calls the hotline. Their motivations don't really matter. What matters is if the police find evidence that they are telling the truth. Indeed, this is the whole point of whistleblower reporting - you may be wrong, and you may be biased, but if you raise a credible allegation, the job of Congress, the DoJ, Inspector Generals, etc. is to review the hard evidence that is out there to see if something went wrong.

Congress is independently validating his submission with hard evidence. What matters is what is in that evidence. We're past the point where the whistleblower's motivations, identity, lawyer, etc. is remotely relevant. There are loads of people on the record validating what is in the complaint with testimony under penalty of perjury. That testimony and associated hard evidence (texts, call logs, etc.) can and should be the primary basis for evaluating this topic. Not anything related to the whistleblower anymore.

 

[SadButTrue]

Miller you stupid idiot, stop trying to defend trump on this he said it, he said he said it, everyone who has testified has said he said it. The whistle blower was spot on and there is no way out of it. Oh my god you are the epitome of a trumpster. Why don't you just go away. You are a waste of space on this forum.

 

[millerbleach]

Congress is independently validating his submission with hard evidence. What matters is what is in that evidence. We're past the point where the whistleblower's motivations, identity, lawyer, etc. is remotely relevant. There are loads of people on the record validating what is in the complaint with testimony under penalty of perjury. That testimony and associated hard evidence (texts, call logs, etc.) can and should be the primary basis for evaluating this topic. Not anything related to the whistleblower anymore.

The point is that this is obviously not a case of trying to do what is right as much as an attempt to take out Trump. That is fair game but, anything coming from that corner is going to need to be validated rather than believed whole hog. There also is the possible matter of Schiff encouraging or advising this individual who is hardly non-partisan. It looks on the surface as though Schiff provided the allegations and witness, and is trying the case too.
You talk of hard evidence being gathered but I know of none. Time will tell but so far the corroboration testimonies are more along the lines of......yeah, it could have been that I guess......unless it is a true never

 

[3Rfan]

The point is that this is obviously not a case of trying to do what is right as much as an attempt to take out Trump. That is fair game but, anything coming from that corner is going to need to be validated rather than believed whole hog. There also is the possible matter of Schiff encouraging or advising this individual who is hardly non-partisan. It looks on the surface as though Schiff provided the allegations and witness, and is trying the case too.
You talk of hard evidence being gathered but I know of none. Time will tell but so far the corroboration testimonies are more along the lines of......yeah, it could have been that I guess......unless it is a true never

I see you have bought the pub line that Schiff has brought in people that he recruited and advised how to testify. I'm sure some these lifelong public servants who have served under several administrations and Sonland who donated a million bucks to Trump's inauguration have become democratic schills to help bring down Trump. Apparently if Trump or his allies in the senate say it it MUST be true.

 

[millerbleach]

I see you have bought the pub line that Schiff has brought in people that he recruited and advised how to testify. I'm sure some these lifelong public servants who have served under several administrations and Sonland who donated a million bucks to Trump's inauguration have become democratic schills to help bring down Trump. Apparently if Trump or his allies in the senate say it it MUST be true.

Lets put Schiff under oath and see who to believe.

 

[Neutron Monster]

The point is that this is obviously not a case of trying to do what is right as much as an attempt to take out Trump. That is fair game but, anything coming from that corner is going to need to be validated rather than believed whole hog. There also is the possible matter of Schiff encouraging or advising this individual who is hardly non-partisan. It looks on the surface as though Schiff provided the allegations and witness, and is trying the case too.
You talk of hard evidence being gathered but I know of none. Time will tell but so far the corroboration testimonies are more along the lines of......yeah, it could have been that I guess......unless it is a true never

The whistleblower may well be trying to take out Trump, but, again, what matters is the substance of his complaint. The same is even true of Schiff - unless he's instructing people to lie or gathering false evidence, well, he's a member of the opposition party.

The problem here is that the President did something really dumb, not that someone complained about it. You can differ on whether you think it deserves impeachment. Fine, I get that. But attaching the whistleblower as biased is a distraction from the core question: did the President have Rudy and others freelance to extort the President of the Ukraine via withholding Congressionally approved military aid to make a public statement about a corruption investigation into the Bidens? The evidence so far is heavily weighted towards yes.

 

[millerbleach]

You aren't hearing anything but the OPINIONS and filtered reports from those who are heavily biased though. That is my point. How do you trust people who are motivated by the take down rather than truth?

 

[SadButTrue]

You aren't hearing anything but the OPINIONS and filtered reports from those who are heavily biased though. That is my point. How do you trust people who are motivated by the take down rather than truth?

OMG!!!!! YOUR president does it ALL of the time. Do you ever think before you post?

 

[Neutron Monster]

You aren't hearing anything but the OPINIONS and filtered reports from those who are heavily biased though. That is my point. How do you trust people who are motivated by the take down rather than truth?

They've been releasing the full transcripts all week. Go read them.

 

[3Rfan]

They've been releasing the full transcripts all week. Go read them.

He's probably be like Lindsey Graham who thinks he knows all he needs to know about it and refuses to read them.

 

[millerbleach]

He's probably be like Lindsey Graham who thinks he knows all he needs to know about it and refuses to read them.

Whose transcript would you suggest I read that tells me something that was on the call that wasn't in the transcript of the call?

 

[Cutterover]

Whose transcript would you suggest I read that tells me something that was on the call that wasn't in the transcript of the call?

 

[vbsideout]

They've been releasing the full transcripts all week. Go read them.

LOL You are asking these guys to read. Do you know how funny that sounds

 

[SadButTrue]

LOL You are asking these guys to read. Do you know how funny that sounds

They're still on page 1 of the Mueller Report.

 

[3Rfan]

Whose transcript would you suggest I read that tells me something that was on the call that wasn't in the transcript of the call?

Vindman comes too mind. Sonland is another after his memory of events came back to him. Those ... things in the transcript were not just a pause in the conversation.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Whose transcript would you suggest I read that tells me something that was on the call that wasn't in the transcript of the call?

In what world is the only thing that matters a summary of a call and not any of the other conversations, meetings, or documented events which inform your understanding of the situation?

We have weeks and months of interactions to understand; it's not like the President and his team only discussed this topic once.

 

[Neutron Monster]

View embedded media

What does your post have to do with rebutting anything in the Sondland deposition?

The whistleblower matters 0%, he was just a tipster. What matters is that lots of other people, including political appointees, are on record detailing that this happened.

 

[millerbleach]

Vindman comes too mind. Sonland is another after his memory of events came back to him. Those ... things in the transcript were not just a pause in the conversation.

Those transcripts tell me nothing the call transcript doesn't say.

 

[Cutterover]

What does your post have to do with rebutting anything in the Sondland deposition?

The whistleblower matters 0%, he was just a tipster. What matters is that lots of other people, including political appointees, are on record detailing that this happened.

Nothing is on the up and up. The "other people" don't matter. Russia gate destroyed any credibility. Transcripts can be edited. No cross examinations. Period.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Nothing is on the up and up. The "other people" don't matter. Russia gate destroyed any credibility. Transcripts can be edited. No cross examinations. Period.

name a single substantive complaint you have with the actual evidence that has been gathered. Cut the red herring process complaints out and focus on what we know.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Those transcripts tell me nothing the call transcript doesn't say.

They tell you a lot, considering there were lots of other conversations going on with Ukrainian leadership that were being overseen and influenced from the White House and by the President's lawyers.

 

[millerbleach]

how do you know if you haven’t read them?
Osmosis? Telepathy? Voodoo?

Why do you say I haven't read them? Osmosis? Telepathy? Voodoo?
You know not of which you speak.
What transcript tells me anything concrete (not speculation) that the call transcript doesn't show?

 

[millerbleach]

They tell you a lot, considering there were lots of other conversations going on with Ukrainian leadership that were being overseen and influenced from the White House and by the President's lawyers.

I haven't seen any testimony that isn't speculation of what is "believed" or "could be".
Maybe you can highlight some quotes you think are contrary to that.

 

[SadButTrue]

I haven't seen any testimony that isn't speculation of what is "believed" or "could be".
Maybe you can highlight some quotes you think are contrary to that.

Your president read us the transcript.

 

[Neutron Monster]

I haven't seen any testimony that isn't speculation of what is "believed" or "could be".
Maybe you can highlight some quotes you think are contrary to that.

There's many contemporaneous emails and text messages within them documenting what happened.

 

[3Rfan]

I haven't seen any testimony that isn't speculation of what is "believed" or "could be".
Maybe you can highlight some quotes you think are contrary to that.

I guess none of this matters if YOU think Trump's personal lawyer, who does NOT work for the State Department, AND Trump's acting chief of staff did all this crap on their own without Trump's direction or knowledge of what they were doing.

 

[millerbleach]

There's many contemporaneous emails and text messages within them documenting what happened.

Just hit the high spots, I don't need a long list.

 

[millerbleach]

I guess none of this matters if YOU think Trump's personal lawyer, who does NOT work for the State Department, AND Trump's acting chief of staff did all this crap on their own without Trump's direction or knowledge of what they were doing.

You don't think his personal attorney should go to foreign governments to defend him when he is being accused of dealing with foreign governments?

 

[Blondee15]

What does this have to do with the credibility of what is in the whistleblower's report, since it has effectively all been confirmed by the interviews?

The reason they are focusing on things like this is because they can't rebut the substance of what was in the report because it is true.

Well since there is absolutely nothing wrong with what is in the transcript of his call why in the world would they have to rebut anything??

Their entire case is built on third hand, “a guy told me that someone inferred to him the He thought this is what Trump wanted done” testimony

I don’t know why Trump doesn’t call out the fake whistleblower for what he is. The whistleblower statute protects said person from retaliation on his job,,,,it has never guaranteed anonymity after filing a report

 

[3Rfan]

You don't think his personal attorney should go to foreign governments to defend him when he is being accused of dealing with foreign governments?

That is NOT what Rudy is doing and you know it! He is conducting foreign policy meetings with government officials, sometimes using his buddies that were arrested before they could leave the country. NOT his job as a personal lawyer!!

 

[Blondee15]

That is NOT what Rudy is doing and you know it! He is conducting foreign policy meetings with government officials, sometimes using his buddies that were arrested before they could leave the country. NOT his job as a personal lawyer!!

Presidents are free to carry on foreign policy as they choose. Historically Presidents have used non State Dept people to make contact and deal with foreign governments.

Big nothingburger here. If the Dems have evidence of an impeachable offense just vote on it and send it to the Senate. If the President has done something that is so terrible my vote should be nullified and him removed from office it shouldn’t take a 3 month investigation to gather facts.

In our society evidence of criminal actions by individuals are supposed to result in charges then prosecution.

In the Case of Trump Haters charges are made then an investigation launched in search of evidence

Bunch of left wing losers getting ready to lose again biggly

 

[3Rfan]

Presidents are free to carry on foreign policy as they choose. Historically Presidents have used non State Dept people to make contact and deal with foreign governments.

Big nothingburger here. If the Dems have evidence of an impeachable offense just vote on it and send it to the Senate. If the President has done something that is so terrible my vote should be nullified and him removed from office it shouldn’t take a 3 month investigation to gather facts.

In our society evidence of criminal actions by individuals are supposed to result in charges then prosecution.

In the Case of Trump Haters charges are made then an investigation launched in search of evidence

Bunch of left wing losers getting ready to lose again biggly

I'm guessing you weren't around to pay attention to the last two impeachments. Before the Clinton impeachment they had an independent counsel do all the searching for evidence BEFORE the impeachment. It started with the Whitewater deal and the only thing they came up with was a stained blue dress and Clinton lying about it. It had NOTHING to do what the investigation was started for but he got impeached anyway and not removed by a republican senate. I don't see THIS senate voting to remove Trump either but for very different reasons.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Well since there is absolutely nothing wrong with what is in the transcript of his call why in the world would they have to rebut anything??

Their entire case is built on third hand, “a guy told me that someone inferred to him the He thought this is what Trump wanted done” testimony

I don’t know why Trump doesn’t call out the fake whistleblower for what he is. The whistleblower statute protects said person from retaliation on his job,,,,it has never guaranteed anonymity after filing a report

The transcript is a disaster.

 

[Neutron Monster]

You don't think his personal attorney should go to foreign governments to defend him when he is being accused of dealing with foreign governments?

NO! This is really, profoundly wrong. The President's personal attorney should not be engaged in discussions about Congressionally appropriated foreign aid. That's directly in the purview of the State Department and the Defense Department.

Further, if we think corruption is meaningful and needs to be addressed, that's why we have the State Department and the Justice Department.

Having a non-USG employee there discussing what should be US policy is 100% wrong and a terrible conflict of interest. It should be US employees working on behalf of US citizens.

Personal attorneys handle PERSONAL matters. That's it. Foreign policy is not a personal matter, it's a policy that is supposed to be 100% governed on behalf of the American people.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Presidents are free to carry on foreign policy as they choose. Historically Presidents have used non State Dept people to make contact and deal with foreign governments.

Big nothingburger here. If the Dems have evidence of an impeachable offense just vote on it and send it to the Senate. If the President has done something that is so terrible my vote should be nullified and him removed from office it shouldn’t take a 3 month investigation to gather facts.

In our society evidence of criminal actions by individuals are supposed to result in charges then prosecution.

In the Case of Trump Haters charges are made then an investigation launched in search of evidence

Bunch of left wing losers getting ready to lose again biggly

Except they entrust them with acting on behalf of the US Government and our citizens, not on their personal behalf as a personal agent.

E.g. when you send a retired Senator to a foreign country, it's pretty obvious that he's serving on behalf of the USG's interests. And most of these people are formal appointments and/or are reporting to people other than the President. When we have a back channel to Irish republicans, the Taliban, etc...it's an official government effort.

 

[millerbleach]

NO! This is really, profoundly wrong. The President's personal attorney should not be engaged in discussions about Congressionally appropriated foreign aid. That's directly in the purview of the State Department and the Defense Department.

Further, if we think corruption is meaningful and needs to be addressed, that's why we have the State Department and the Justice Department.

Having a non-USG employee there discussing what should be US policy is 100% wrong and a terrible conflict of interest. It should be US employees working on behalf of US citizens.

Personal attorneys handle PERSONAL matters. That's it. Foreign policy is not a personal matter, it's a policy that is supposed to be 100% governed on behalf of the American people.

First, I guess you actually have evidence Rudy was negotiating with foreign aid. Care to share it?
What is in the transcript is Trump asking if they wanted to meet with Rudy about the CORRUPTION issues and what happened in the 2016 election.