President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in, Lexington, Ky., Monday, Nov. 4, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
world

Trump attacks whistleblower anonymity, but won't utter name

57 Comments
By MARK SHERMAN and JONATHAN LEMIRE

President Donald Trump is blasting the media for not reporting the name of a person who has been identified in conservative circles as the whistleblower who spurred the impeachment inquiry. Yet Trump has carefully avoided using the name himself.

Exposing whistleblowers can be dicey, even for a president. For one thing, it could be a violation of federal law to identify the whistleblower. While there's little chance Trump could face charges, revealing the name could give Democrats more impeachment fodder. It could also prompt a backlash among some Senate Republicans who have long defended whistleblowers.

And, despite wanting the name to be disclosed, Trump sees some benefits to keeping it secret. The anonymity makes it easier for Trump to undermine the credibility of the person behind the complaint as well as the complaint itself, according to three officials and Republicans close to the White House not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations. It also allows him to bash the media for supposedly protecting the whistleblower.

In recent weeks, a name has circulated in conservative media of a man said to be the whistleblower. The president's son, Donald Trump Jr., on Wednesday tweeted a link to a story on the Breitbart website that used the name. He also included the name in his tweet.

U.S. whistleblower laws exist to protect the identity and careers of people who bring forward accusations of wrongdoing by government officials. Lawmakers in both parties have historically backed those protections. The Associated Press typically does not reveal the identity of whistleblowers.

The identity of the whistleblower is almost a moot point: Much of the unnamed person's August complaint about Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has been corroborated and expanded upon by officials' on-the-record, congressional testimony and the reconstructed, partial transcript of the call released by the White House.

In a statement shortly after Trump Jr.'s tweet, the whistleblower's attorneys warned that "Identifying any suspected name for the whistleblower will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm."

The statement by Andrew P. Bakaj and Mark S. Zaid said that "publication or promotion of a name shows the desperation to deflect from the substance of the whistleblower complaint. It will not relieve the President of the need to address the substantive allegations, all of which have been substantially proven to be true."

A number of Trump allies have counseled the president not to unveil the whistleblower's identity. So in recent days Trump has shifted to a new tactic, denouncing the media for allegedly protecting the whistleblower by refusing to identify the person, allowing him to charge that the media is in cahoots with Democrats and the "deep state" — Trump opponents in the government.

The strategy is reminiscent of the one Trump used during special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, during which he derided the so-called deep state investigators for allegedly plotting to bring down a duly elected president.

Trump, on Twitter and while talking to reporters, relentlessly painted then-FBI director James Comey, agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page as corrupt and conspiratorial. Though there's no solid evidence that the Russia probe suffered from any improper bias at its origin, Page and Strzok, in a series of text messages, revealed their dislike of Trump, which the president pointed to as proof of a plot against him.

With help from some allies, including Sen. Rand Paul at a Kentucky rally on Monday, Trump has moved to create a similar dynamic with the whistleblower. Without providing evidence, Trump has painted the whistleblower as a liberal "Never Trumper" and held up the person's anonymity — essential for protection — as some sort of nefarious proof of a conspiracy with Democrats.

Much like his scattershot efforts to muddle the narrative of the Mueller probe, often by questioning the integrity and process of the investigation itself rather than the facts, Trump has been looking to plant the seed of doubt about the Ukraine matter with both his base and the GOP senators who could decide his fate in an impeachment trial, according to the officials and Republicans.

But if he identified the supposed whistleblower, Trump could risk antagonizing some of those same senators, who believe whistleblowers are important for rooting out corruption. Advocates for whistleblowers warn that stripping anonymity from the person who made the Ukraine complaint would make people across the government more reluctant to speak up about wrongdoing.

In the context of an investigation, someone who names or retaliates against a whistleblower could be prosecuted for obstructing an investigation or harassing a witness, said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project.

But whistleblowers in the intelligence community, like the one who reported the Ukraine call, lack many of the protections provided to their counterparts elsewhere in the government. "There are some rights on paper, but in reality they are extremely weak," Devine said.

In other parts of the government, whistleblowers can take claims they have been retaliated against to independent administrative agencies and, potentially, federal courts. In the intelligence agencies, complaints are handled internally.

"The way you do that is by going back to the agency that retaliated against you to ask them to change their minds," Devine said. There is a right of appeal to the inspector general, whose work can be reviewed a panel of auditors he appoints, he said.

Stephen Kohn, the chairman of the board of the National Whistleblower Center, said it's troubling that prospects for protecting the whistleblower really depend on Trump.

"The only guarantee here is to hope the president does his job" and prevents retaliation against him in the first place, Kohn said.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Smart and principled move by Trump.

The traitors name will eventually be leaked anyways.

-21 ( +2 / -23 )

Why would you call him a traitor?  Did he try to do a deal with a foreign country that would benefit him personally?  And what do you think will happen when his name is released?  Are you anticipating an assassination by people unknown?  Because that is a definite possibility given the background of some of Trumps supporters.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

Smart and principled move by Trump.

Hahaha! Donny having principles! That's a good one.

The traitors name will eventually be leaked anyways.

His name is Donald J. Trump.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

The identity of the whistleblower is almost a moot point: 

Only if you don’t understand what a “moot point” is. Shame on you AP.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Sure, Trump won't utter his name, so he got Don Jr. to tweet it out! These people have no shame!

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Only if you don’t understand what a “moot point” is. Shame on you AP

Agreed. The whistleblower's information is a moot point as it's been superceded by the testimony of Donny's own people.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Donny boy: I'm president, and you MUST respect the rights I'm afforded as such.

Donny boy: This whistleblower does NOT deserve the rights he's afforded as such.

The morons: Winning! Orange man bad blah blah dems!

8 ( +10 / -2 )

MarkX already said it and here is more info:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-jr-tweets-name-of-whistleblower-164434463.html

The traitor(s) blaming a whistleblower for presenting facts ...... what a joke!

And of course always the same, blaming others:

"..... relentlessly painted then-FBI director James Comey, agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page as corrupt and conspiratorial. "

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Waste of time. The whistleblower is irrelevant now. Time is better spent focusing on Pompeo.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

The whistleblower is irrelevant now.

Not to those who would seek to get retribution.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Agreed. The whistleblower's information is a moot point as it's been superceded by the testimony of Donny's own people.

what I meant was that “moot” means a hotly debated topic, a matter of controversy. Although its unfortunate resemblance to “mute” means that it is often used to mean quite the opposite - as in irrelevant.

Anyway, I’ll go back to the pedants’ corner and leave you to the debate.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

For one thing, it could be a violation of federal law to identify the whistleblower.

Laws are for peasants (har har); Trump and his fellow elite think they are above the law and their legal goons like Barr and Giuliani will protect them.

The traitors name will eventually be leaked anyways

Trump and Pompeo's names are well known. Because of their close connections with 'foreign' powers and the reality they've asked those powers to intervene and 'meddle' in US affairs does put them under an umbrella of treachery, maybe even traitorism.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Smart and principled move by Trump.

The traitors name will eventually be leaked anyways.

Look, everyone knows his name, Trump knows who it is, the GOP knows who it is and Rand Paul might even go to the Senate floor and say his name since he wouldn’t have to worry any political repercussions.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

*Ukraine's lead prosecutor S***hokin said in a sworn affidavit "I was forced out because I was leading a wide-range corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, was a member of the board of directors."**

Forced out by who? Why Vice President of the US daddy Biden, that’s who.

There’s a new sheriff in town. Safe spaces with crisis puppies are still available.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

It does not matter who the whistleblower is, the information they have provided is accurate. The police do not care who tipped them off about the body in the basement, only that it was there when they went looking.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

@bas4fLook, everyone knows his name,

Given Trump's close ties to Putin, does that put the whistleblower at risk of being dioxinate-d or noichok-ed? I'm sure those in Trump's faction of the deep state are also willing to do whatever it takes to protect their leader's ongoing attempts to establish a system of corporatist authoritarianism under his - and his fellow global elite - control.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Look, everyone knows his name, Trump knows who it is, the GOP knows who it is and Rand Paul might even go to the Senate floor and say his name since he wouldn’t have to worry any political repercussions.

Further evidence that Trumpophiles care nothing for the rule of law.

What Trumpophiles fail to understand is that the whistleblowers identity, politics, and motivation do not matter because the substance of the complaint had been repeatedly corroborated by Donny's own people.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Trump himself has no need to release the name. Dems were not for whistleblower protection for Snowden, so this outrage seems only based on what whistle you blow against who. We do know who Chelsea Manning is too, don’t we?

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

Oh but yes they do. Once the police know who you are they can look into your background. to see how you are involved( If at all) with the people who put the body there.

It’s called “motive” and did you benefit from the police knowing that body is there. This whistleblower highly benefits from all of this as he is a political operative. We don’t even know who he is to be able to check horns I account to see if any large deposits recently.

The police do not care who tipped them off about the body in the basement, only that it was there when they went looking.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

*his bank account.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

This whistleblower highly benefits from all of this as he is a political operative. We don’t even know who he is to be able to check horns I account to see if any large deposits recently.

Ahhhh.....so, we don't know who they are, but somehow you know they benefit. Riiiiigggghhhhtttt. Do you have any idea what often happens to whistleblowers?

You're so angry at this whistleblower, but tell me: what exactly do you think he fabricated? What was made up that hasn't been corroborated?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Talk about a dead horse...

Trump and Trumpers want to deflect from all the Trump appointees and others that have testified under oath that this was a QPQ shakedown.

The Whistle Blower said they was told that there was possibly a QPQ from two other individuals, but Donnie admitted it in the call summary, and Mulvaney said "Get over it, we do it all the time".

LTC Vindman was in the room when Sondland stated clearly that any WH Oval Office meeting was contingent on Ukraine starting an investigation of the Bidens - twice. Bolton was there for one. Sondland lied under oath the first time and had to go back and change his testimony or face joining Manafort and Cohen at Club Fed. He now says it was a QPQ.

Taylor - a Pompeo and Trump pick, says in his transcript today that there were two QPQs - they military aid and a WH Oval Office meeting - Trump withheld both until Ukraine agreed to investigate the Bidens.

Trump and Trumpers are grabbing at straws as the mountain of evidence gets higher. They'll attack and try to destroy the reputation of the Whistle Blower, all to distract from their own people confirming all that he/she alleged.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

It will not relieve the President of the need to address the substantive allegations, all of which have been substantially proven to be true."

By Mark Sherman and Jonathan Lemire 

Except that they haven't been substantially proven to be true. Sherman and Lemire are simply reciting the talking points supplied to them by elected Democrats.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Whistle blower name released by Don Jr. at the behest of dad.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

It does not matter who the whistleblower is,

Oh, yes it does, especially now that we know he’s a partisan that was fired in the Obama Administration and that he worked for the CIA as an analyst and who worked for John Brennan, now it’s interesting given the disdain the man has for the President this joker is tied to him. Like I said, I hope Rand Paul shouts his name on the Senate floor and expose this partisan political hack for the scum he is.

the information they have provided is accurate.

Says who? Schiff or Ciaramilla?

The police do not care who tipped them off about the body in the basement, only that it was there when they went looking.

That’s what Jeff Zucker wants you to believe.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

I can hardly wait to hear the whistleblower testify under oath about how he, or she, were collaborating with team Schiff before the whistleblower filed his, or her, complaint. I want to hear just how much team Schiff coaxed/coached this witness.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

I can hardly wait to hear the whistleblower testify under oath about how he, or she, were collaborating with team Schiff before the whistleblower filed his, or her, complaint. I want to hear just how much team Schiff coaxed/coached this witness.

Some folks have spent too much time listening to Hannity's drivel...

I bet you can't wait to hear from Bolton either when he testifies under oath that he was in the room when Sondland brought up the White House Oval Office meeting QPQ and immediately shut the meeting down. Or that he told everyone that Rudy's smear campaign was "drug deal" and that Rudy was a "Hand Grenade" that would take everyone out (boy, he nailed that one).

Oh, yes it does, especially now that we know he’s a partisan that was fired in the Obama Administration and that he worked for the CIA as an analyst and who worked for John Brennan, now it’s interesting given the disdain the man has for the President this joker is tied to him. Like I said, I hope Rand Paul shouts his name on the Senate floor and expose this partisan political hack for the scum he is.

I hope Rand does too - to be led immediately off in cuffs for violation of the Whistle Blower Protection Act.

the information they have provided is accurate.

Says who? Schiff or Ciaramilla?

Duh, Dimwit Donnie, Crazy Rudy, Moron Mick, Sondland, Taylor, Vindman, Yovanovich,...didn't you read Sondland's amendment yesterday?

He originally told investigators he took Trump at his word that there was never a quid pro quo attaching aid or a White House visit to investigations. But as additional witnesses testified and more information became public, Sondland appeared to have a change of heart. The week after his deposition, Sondland returned with lawyers to Capitol Hill to “review” his testimony. In the updated statement, Sondland said withholding the aid was “ill-advised” and added: “By the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

And this is Donnie's buddy...

Yep, keep beating that dead Whistle Blower horse Trumpers - it makes Fox News money...but nothing else...

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Some folks have spent too much time listening to Hannity's drivel...

So they should listen to Maddow’s drivel?

I bet you can't wait to hear from Bolton

Bolton is going in kicking and screaming which indicates to me a hostile potential witness, in that case the President has nothing to worry about.

I hope Rand does too - to be led immediately off in cuffs for violation of the Whistle Blower Protection Act.

Nope, not one the Senate floor, so he should do it.

Duh, Dimwit Donnie, Crazy Rudy, Moron Mick, Sondland, Taylor, Vindman, Yovanovich,...didn't you read Sondland's amendment yesterday?

Yes, but I saw nothing at least from an impeachable standpoint. But Ciaramilla though...

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Some folks have spent too much time listening to Hannity's drivel...

So they should listen to Maddow’s drivel?

If you say so...

I bet you can't wait to hear from Bolton

Bolton is going in kicking and screaming which indicates to me a hostile potential witness, in that case the President has nothing to worry about.

He's smart, he's ensuring it's lawful for him to testify - and you never answered my question; what do you think Donnie would do if Bolton called him a "disaster"?

I hope Rand does too - to be led immediately off in cuffs for violation of the Whistle Blower Protection Act.

Nope, not one the Senate floor, so he should do it.

Your legal advice is as good as Rudy's...go for it Rand! Say hello to Manafort for me....

Duh, Dimwit Donnie, Crazy Rudy, Moron Mick, Sondland, Taylor, Vindman, Yovanovich,...didn't you read Sondland's amendment yesterday?

Yes, but I saw nothing at least from an impeachable standpoint. But Ciaramilla though...

Saw nothing - that's what happens when you close your eyes...too painful I assume...

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Typical cowardly Trump. His MI is to leave no fingerprints, to have others break the law at his wink-wink type direction. That's why so many of his underlings are in prison.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

I found this interesting that they tried to remove the hold up on the military aid to Ukraine but couldn’t because Trump was out shopping for real estate.

Mr. Taylor briefly brings together two Trump administration controversies. Mr. Taylor told House investigators that Mr. Bolton was trying to get the hold on Ukraine aid removed and tried to organize a meeting with the C.I.A. director, Gina Haspel; Mr. Pompeo and the defense secretary, Mark T. Esper. One reason Mr. Taylor offered was that the National Security Council was focused on Mr. Trump’s desire to buy Greenland. The testimony suggests that not only was Mr. Trump serious about buying Greenland, which was known, but also that his national security staff was dedicating serious time to the matter.

— Julian E. Barnes

4 ( +5 / -1 )

He's smart, he's ensuring it's lawful for him to testify - and you never answered my question; what do you think Donnie would do if Bolton called him a "disaster"?

He’s not a a backstabber and won’t play the Dems sinister game.

Your legal advice is as good as Rudy's...go for it Rand!

No, it’s the Senate rules

Saw nothing - that's what happens when you close your eyes...too painful I assume.

Democrats should know.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

He's smart, he's ensuring it's lawful for him to testify - and you never answered my question; what do you think Donnie would do if Bolton called him a "disaster"?

He’s not a a backstabber and won’t play the Dems sinister game.

Uh-huh - he really likes being called a "disaster" - and dodged the question again I see...

Your legal advice is as good as Rudy's...go for it Rand!

No, it’s the Senate rules

Sure, go for it Rand - and the Senate Sgt of Arms will frog-march you out for all to see. They'll sure be plenty of witnesses...

Saw nothing - that's what happens when you close your eyes...too painful I assume.

Democrats should know.

Your words - and you closed your eyes to Sondland's own admission of a QPQ above...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I'm still confused about what law allows a president to put his own personal lawyer, unappointed and uncomfirmed by congress, into such a powerful position.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Uh-huh - he really likes being called a "disaster" - and dodged the question again I see...

Not really.

Sure, go for it Rand - and the Senate Sgt of Arms will frog-march you out for all to see. They'll sure be plenty of witnesses...

Not on the Senate floor, now if he’s foolish outside of the chambers, then yes.

Your words - and you closed your eyes to Sondland's own admission of a QPQ above

I didn’t, no reason to. It’s just laughable that the Dems are willing to risk their careers over this, but hey, it’s a free world.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Uh-huh - he really likes being called a "disaster" - and dodged the question again I see...

Not really.

Point out for us where you answered; What would Donnie do if Bolton called him a "disaster"?

Sure, go for it Rand - and the Senate Sgt of Arms will frog-march you out for all to see. They'll sure be plenty of witnesses...

Not on the Senate floor, now if he’s foolish outside of the chambers, then yes.

Or once again, you were wrong...

Your words - and you closed your eyes to Sondland's own admission of a QPQ above

I didn’t, no reason to. It’s just laughable that the Dems are willing to risk their careers over this, but hey, it’s a free world.

*“By the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”*

QPQ - read it and weep...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

that Trump brought up Biden EIGHT times in the call, for one. Remember that?

What was made up that hasn't been corroborated?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Should be fine if the Attorney General of the USA can be the "wingman" of a specific President. Ride or die.

I'm still confused about what law allows a president to put his own personal lawyer, unappointed and uncomfirmed by congress, into such a powerful position.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

you bolded the wrong word. He never talked to Trump, never asked and was never told this. He heard from someone else that this might be what would make Rudy Giuliani happy. thats why he presumed.

“By the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I **presumed that the aid suspension had become **linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

you bolded the wrong word. He never talked to Trump, never asked and was never told this. He heard from someone else that this might be what would make Rudy Giuliani happy. thats why he presumed.

Keep spinning....just don't get too dizzy...

Spin this one from Trump and Pompeo's hand-picked guy Taylor...

As NBC News reported in October after he first testified, Taylor stated in plain and clear language that he felt the military aid to Ukraine had been directly tied to Ukraine opening investigations into the Burisma energy company — the Ukrainian gas company whose board of directors Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden joined in 2014 — as well as a conspiracy theory about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

"That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the president [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation," Taylor said, according to the transcript.

He was then asked if he was "aware that quid pro quo literally means this for that?"

"I am," Taylor replied.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-diplomat-in-ukraine-directly-ties-trump-to-quid-pro-quo/ar-AAJXs9b

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Taylor also testified that Bolton was “so irritated” by Sondland, during a meeting in early July, attempting to connect an Oval Office meeting for Zelensky with the investigations into the 2016 election and the Bidens, that he abruptly ended the meeting, referring to it as a “drug deal.”

This is exactly what LTC Vindman testified to. No wonder Sondland had to go back and "review" his previous testimony. But he's not out of the woods when it comes to lying under oath.

Taylor, Sondland - these are all Trump appointees - his guys - yet they all say it was a QPQ...

And it will only get worse when Bolton testifies...

And in other news, we see Roger Stone roasted for lying under oath five times to try to protect Trump...

With friends like these, Donnie doesn't need any enemies...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

that Trump brought up Biden EIGHT times in the call, for one. Remember that?

Nobody knows how many time Donny brought up Biden in the call be says nobody has seen an actual transcript of the call; we've seen a partial summary. Accuracy continues to elude up.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

*you

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Or once again, you were wrong...

Actually, I’m not, especially on this issue.

“By the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Well, if Obama didn’t get impeached for talking to his buddy Medvedev, then Trump should be in good stand with that phone call. Now Biden on the other hand...

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9

QPQ - read it and weep, in full detail, gleaming dentures and bragging and proud of it.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Identifying the person by name is a criminal offence. It is also meaningless at this point, as there is overwhelming evidence that the occupant of 1600 approached both the Russians and Ukrainians for intel on his political opponents. He's going down.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Love how the the goal posts move. Whistleblower testimony is the end of Drumpf! (Won’t testify). Russia is the end! (Oops Ukraine). Comey is the end! Cohen is the end! Manafort is the end! Mueller is the end! (Now Bolton?)

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

so if The NY Times announces the name who goes to jail for the supposed criminal offense?

whistleblower is to protect people from losing their job. Not to allow anonymous prosecution of others.

whattabout Eric’s lawyer? Coup had started from January 2017 and CNN will be a part of it.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The law says a whistleblower must be protected. There shouldn't be any debate. It is the law.

At this point, trying to discredit the whistleblower won't work. After the other witnesses plus Vindiman and Taylor's detailed testimony, Sondland changed his testimony because he was caught lying for Trump.

Key diplomat changes testimony and admits quid pro quo with Ukraine

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/gordon-sondland-kurt-volker-transcripts-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

The president's personal lawyer/Attorney General also refused to say Trump was innocent.

William Barr Declined To Hold Press Conference Clearing Trump Over Ukraine: Report

https://news.yahoo.com/william-barr-declined-trump-ukraine-press-conference.html

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Your partisan resistance hero Vindman does. He said a few words were missing. Not 6 more times of mentioning Biden. weren’t all of these dozen “witnesses” on the call too? They would know, right?

Nobody knows how many time Donny brought up Biden in the call be says nobody has seen an actual transcript of the call; we've seen a partial summary. Accuracy continues to elude up.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

 It is also meaningless at this point, as there is overwhelming evidence that the occupant of 1600 approached both the Russians and Ukrainians for intel on his political opponents. He's going down.

Not really, he’s very strong in key battleground States, has way more money on hand than all the Democrats did more outreach in cyberspace, 53% of voters in key swing states don’t want him impeached, strong economy, record low unemployment, and the Dems have......impeachment on their record. Trump is holding steady and going up and if he can win the EC again, it’s over for the Democrats big time.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Your partisan resistance hero Vindman does.

can’t wait until they cross examine him.

He said a few words were missing. Not 6 more times of mentioning Biden. weren’t all of these dozen “witnesses” on the call too? They would know, right?

Biden has his own mounting problems to worry about.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

No he doesn't.

He does, that’s why he’s slipping a bit in the polls, now that can change, but with the circus that surrounding his son ans the apparent coverup that the media has...oh, kinda like how they were covering up for Epstein and trying to squash every negative story on him. Biden will never be the nominee. Warren will, but she’ll get wasted by Trump and besides she won’t get any minority voters as well as Wall St. hates her, Sanders is out, he doesn’t know that yet, but he’s done. But hey, there’s always 2024.....maybe....

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

but with the circus that surrounding his son ans the apparent coverup that the media ha

There was no coverup. This conspiracy theory has been disproven time and time again.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

To utter the name would be the job of the media, but trust the fake corporate news organizations not to do that.

You have to go to dissident media to read up on the background of CIA operative and Schiff associate Eric Ciaramella.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

takeda shingen:

There was no coverup. This conspiracy theory has been disproven time and time again.

Corruption and abuse of office is not a "conspiracy theory".

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

There was no coverup. This conspiracy theory has been disproven time and time again

Gee, Anderson Cooper made that assessment without even remotely knowing the facts, he lied and covered for Biden on National TV, wow! But basically, if liberals or their media lemming surrogates say it’s disproven, we just have to take their words face value? Like with the Mueller report or the 2016 polls? ROFL!!

You have to go to dissident media to read up on the background of CIA operative and Schiff associate Eric Ciaramella.

Ciaramella has a very long history of hatred for Republicans as well as deep contempt for Trump, add the Brennan component as well as him being a Democrat and a Biden supporter and partisan, it’s clear he has a long history in the State Department as an Obama holdover to be highly partisan.

This is going to blow up so badly in the Dems faces.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Read from this link,

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/06/dianne-feinstein-rages-whistleblower-identity-testimony-irrelevant/

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites