Ukraine whistleblower wants to testify in writing instead of appearing in person

  
Via:  1stwarrior  •  one month ago  •  109 comments

Ukraine whistleblower wants to testify in writing instead of appearing in person

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The Ukraine whistleblower at the center of the House Democratic impeachment inquiry wants to testify to Congress in writing instead of appearing in person, Fox News has confirmed.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that lawyers for the anonymous CIA officer have asked lawmakers if the whistleblower could submit testimony in writing, but the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have not yet responded.

The request comes amid Democrats' desire to protect the identity of the whistleblower, along with worries over safety and media scrutiny. President Trump and Republicans believe the president should have a right to confront his accuser, and have also cited new reports indicating the whistleblower could have partisan motives. His attorneys have acknowledged he is a registered Democrat who has worked with at least one 2020 candidate. On Thursday, reports surfaced that the candidate was Joe Biden.

Democrats formally launched an impeachment inquiry after the anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint about President Trump pressing Ukrainian officials this summer to investigate 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s business activities in Ukraine.

Other interviews are being conducted on Capitol Hill, as Democrats intensify their impeachment inquiry: Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. envoy to Kiev, is scheduled to sit for a transcribed interview with lawmakers and staff on Friday.

Trump has pushed for information on the identity of the Ukraine whistleblower. In recent tweets, the president has asked, “why aren’t we entitled to interview & learn everything about the Whistleblower, and also the person who gave all of the false information to him.”

During a rally in Minnesota on Thursday night, Trump cited a new report in The Washington Examiner that the whistleblower at the center of Democrats' impeachment push had worked with Biden. The whistleblower's anti-Trump attorney, Mark Zaid, acknowledged earlier in the week that his client had "contact" with current presidential contenders "from both parties."

Fox News recently reported of the possibility that a secret session between the whistleblower and lawmakers could be held away from the U.S. Capitol complex. “Bringing someone up here [to Capitol Hill] is tough,” said one congressional source who asked to not be identified.

It’s unclear where lawmakers could hold such a forum with the whistleblower. A secure facility exists on Capitol Hill, as well as in various quarters of government – ranging from the Department of Justice to the intelligence community.

Earlier this week, the whistleblower’s attorneys said, “The whistleblower is not the story. To date, virtually every substantive allegation has been confirmed by other sources. For that reason the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant."


Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
1stwarrior
1  seeder  1stwarrior    one month ago

During a rally in Minnesota on Thursday night, Trump cited a new report in The Washington Examiner that the whistleblower at the center of Democrats' impeachment push had worked with Biden. The whistleblower's anti-Trump attorney, Mark Zaid, acknowledged earlier in the week that his client had "contact" with current presidential contenders "from both parties."

So the "Dems/Lib" don't want to have an open hearing with the accuser facing the accused.  Kinda violates the Constitution, doncha think???

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1  MrFrost  replied to  1stwarrior @1    one month ago
So the "Dems/Lib" don't want to have an open hearing with the accuser facing the accused.  Kinda violates the Constitution, doncha think???

The only reason the right wants to know who it is, is so they can attack their character, call them names, etc. Standard issue trump response to anything that makes him look bad; attack them, call it a hoax, a witch hunt, etc. 

As to violating the law, it's also a violation to seek help from foreign countries to win an election, which has been proven. 

A whistleblower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public. The Whistleblower Protection Act was made into federal law in the United States in 1989.

Whistleblower protection laws and regulations guarantee freedom of speech for workers and contractors in certain situations. Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation for disclosure of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. [1]

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 , 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.1  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @1.1    one month ago
A whistleblower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public. The Whistleblower Protection Act was made into federal law in the United States in 1989.

Whistleblower protection laws and regulations guarantee freedom of speech for workers and contractors in certain situations. Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation for disclosure of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. [1]

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 , 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. [1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

Nowhere does it state the whistleblower has to stay anonymous. I call BS on "he/she fears for their life.

My opinion is there is no real person, but simply a scheme to give Pelosi an excuse to call for an inquiry. The way it is being done may not be un Constitutional, but it certainly is against precedent.

Again, my opinion, but this is done in order to manipulate public opinion by leaking out bits and pieces that tend to make Trump look bad. If the entirety of the hearings were public, I believe things would be much, much different.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @1.1.1    one month ago
My opinion is there is no real person, but simply a scheme to give Pelosi an excuse to call for an inquiry.

Prove it. And there is nothing in the law that says a WB's identity must be released, if anything, it says the opposite. 

Again, my opinion, but this is done in order to manipulate public opinion by leaking out bits and pieces that tend to make Trump look bad.

Ah, like wikileaks and benghazi. Got it. That was ok, but the left comes up with proof of an actual crime and it's made up "just to sway public opinion". 

How long did benghazi stay in the right wing media? Five years? And wikileaks? Leaking out JUST enough info every few days to last them up to election day? 

Forgive me if your complaints of bias and spin fall on deaf ears. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.3  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.2    one month ago
Prove it.

Derp....

I said it was my opinion.

The only thing the whistleblower law says is they would be protected from retribution from the government. In addition, I never said it must be released. I said there is nothing in the law that says they must be anonymous.

As far as Benghazi, wiki, or whatever...you sure do like to bring things into a conversation that has no place for it.

"Forgive me if your complaints of bias and spin fall on deaf ears".

I rally don't care.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.4  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @1.1.3    one month ago

BTW....what happened to the second "whistleblower? He/she sure did go quiet all of a sudden. Are they following the same protocol of the first?

Go to Schiff and his minions first, then wait 18 days to go to the IG...

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.5  squiggy  replied to  bugsy @1.1.3    one month ago

“As far as Benghazi...”

Phony tits!     Incest!    Turnberry!

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @1.1.3    one month ago
The only thing the whistleblower law says is they would be protected from retribution from the government.

Like keeping their identity secret. 

As far as Benghazi, wiki, or whatever...you sure do like to bring things into a conversation that has no place for it.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.7  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.3    one month ago
The only thing the whistleblower law says is they would be protected from retribution from the government.

The court has ruled that revealing the identity of a whistleblower is retaliation and illegal. The IG is statutorily responsible for protecting the confidentiality of the whistleblowers identity. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.7    one month ago

Does that include a non existent person?

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.9  JBB  replied to  bugsy @1.1.8    one month ago

What does that mean?

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.10  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.6    one month ago
Like keeping their identity secret. 

OK, fine. Let's keep that person's ID a secret. What about those he/she got the info from? They never claimed whistleblower status. Ddi the"whistleblower"/leaker have the clearance to receive the information they did?

I bet if their ID is known, they will sing like birds and the "whistleblower's"/leaker's  ID would be known within minutes.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.11  bugsy  replied to  JBB @1.1.9    one month ago
What does that mean?

It means that, in my opinion, there may not be an actual one person, but a group of people planted by Schiff to try and find something, anything they can use as an excuse to begin an impeachment.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.12  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.10    one month ago
Ddi the"whistleblower"/leaker have the clearance to receive the information they did?

From the ICIG report:

The preliminary review indicated that the Complainant has official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant's Letter and Classifed Appendix. 
 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.13  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.8    one month ago

Not worth my time.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.14  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @1.1.7    one month ago

The court ruled that revealing the identity AS retaliation is illegal.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.15  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.14    one month ago

Re-do - the court ruled that retaliation for a whistleblower's activities, such as firing, is illegal.  There is nothing in the "laws" that state a whistleblower's identity MUST be protected.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.16  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.13    one month ago
Not worth my time.

So, what you are saying is you have no coherent response.

Figures...

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.17  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.15    one month ago
Re-do - the court ruled that retaliation for a whistleblower's activities, such as firing, is illegal.  

Yet you STILL got it wrong.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/13/13-60323-CV0.pdf 

There is nothing in the "laws" that state a whistleblower's identity MUST be protected.

But there IS 1st.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/Policy/Authorities/3033%20Inspector%20General%20of%20the%20Intelligence%20Community.pdf
50 U.S.C.A. § 3033 Formerly cited as 50 USCA § 403-3h § 3033. Inspector General of the Intelligence Community 
(A) the Inspector General shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken, and this provision shall qualify as a withholding statute pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of section 552 of Title 5 (commonly known as the "Freedom of Information Act"); and 
 
Note that it does NOT say: if Trump has a hissy fit. 

The IG investigation has been completed and not 'crime' has been referred to the DOJ, so NO disclosure. 

Here is the complaint for that asks about consent for disclosure:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427767481/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

Look at Page 8 of that document. If the Complainant checked:

I do not consent to disclosure of my name

the IG is REQUIRED to keep that information confidential. 

Now, I am DONE holding your hand.

Please consider doing some research of your OWN before making any more uninformed comments. 

 
 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.19  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.16    one month ago
So, what you are saying is you have no coherent response.
Figures...

What part of my reply was unclear to you? 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.20  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.19    one month ago

You didn't answer my question.

What about those that gave the "info" to the whistleblower/whistleblower/leaker? They have not declared whistleblower status.

Even though the whistleblower/leaker may have had proper clearance for the type of info they were given, did they have the need to know? Having a clearance and having a need to know are two different things.

My opinion says the people that gave the info to thewhistleblower/ leaker should be outed and prosecuted for leaking info the leaker may not have had the need to know.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.21  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @1.1.17    one month ago

First of all, this "person's" information is hearsay which is NOT admissible.  There are NO supporting actors to back him/her up.  Schiff is now backing down the river by saying "Well, we probably won't need their testimony after all."  Why would Shifty say that???  Because there IS NO WHISTLEBLOWER.  Information from Shifty has been shown - let me repeat that - HAS BEEN SHOWN to be inaccurate and has been called on it by numerous folks and organizations - to which he confessed.

You have not, nor has anyone else on NT, seen the IG Complaint form that Shifty and his crew manufactured so you don't have any proof that the individual concerned checked that block.  If you or anyone else has seen the form, you would see the individual's signature and would then know the individual's name.

Also, please note - NOTHING that the individual has listed as a complaint affects/affected the Intelligence Community.  As such, the "Urgent Concern" is not applicable.

(G) In this paragraph, the term "urgent concern" means any of the following: (i) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.

Within the responsibility and authority of the Director involving classified information???  Asking a foreign government for information about the potential wrong doing of a "Former" U.S. VP does not constitute an "urgent concern".  The concern SHOULD be regarding the "former" U.S. VP utilizing his position of power to halt funding of $1B to a foreign power for a favor - and, that may actually be the direction the DNI is going.

You also need to learn how to interpret what that paragraph in 8. means - The IC IG will maintain the confidentiality of your identity where possibleThe disclosure of your identity may become necessary in order to fully investigate, or take other appropriate official action on the allegations contained within your disclosure or information.

The IG is NOT required to keep that information confidential - only those parts of the complaint that contain/address confidential material/matter/information.

Holding my hand???  Not even close.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.22  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.20    one month ago
You didn't answer my question. What about those that gave the "info" to the whistleblower/whistleblower/leaker?

What about them? 

Having a clearance and having a need to know are two different things.

Which begs the question: Why is the identity of the whistleblower something anyone but the ICIG needs to know? 

My opinion says the people that gave the info to thewhistleblower/ leaker should be outed and prosecuted for leaking info the leaker may not have had the need to know.

What lead you to form that opinion? 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.23  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.22    one month ago

My God, why do I bother..., but here goes...

"What about them? "

Those that gave the whistleblowe/leaker  information they may not had the need to know should be open to prosecution for leaking classified/need to know information. More than likely they have signed a confidentiality agreement with the White House or State Department.

"Which begs the question: Why is the identity of the whistleblower something anyone but the ICIG needs to know? "

If a person leaked this information for personal/political reasons, which it looks like that is the case, as referenced by "their" cozy relationship with Biden and Schiff.

"What lead you to form that opinion?"

My first response answers that.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.24  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.21    one month ago
First of all, this "person's" information is hearsay

Not all of it and corroborative witnesses were named and interviewed by the IG. Oh and BTFW, the evidence that Trump supplied corroborates his information. 

which is NOT admissible.

The HOUSE decides what's admissible. 

 There are NO supporting actors to back him/her up.  

There is 1st. They are named in the redacted part of the Appendix of the Complaint. The IG report states that FACT. 

You have not, nor has anyone else on NT, seen the IG Complaint form that Shifty and his crew manufactured so you don't have any proof that the individual concerned checked that block.  If you or anyone else has seen the form, you would see the individual's signature and would then know the individual's name.

So it looks like you are ADMITTING that there IS a requirement in the 'laws' to keep the identity of the whistleblower confidential 1st. PROGRESS!

Oh and if the IG Complaint form was released, the Complainant's identity would be redacted. 

Also, please note - NOTHING that the individual has listed as a complaint affects/affected the Intelligence Community.  As such, the "Urgent Concern" is not applicable.

Do I need to post the dead horse meme 1st. Your point is moot. The Complaint has been released to the Intelligence Committee and then to the WORLD. Why argue over spilt milk? Get over it. 

The concern SHOULD be regarding the "former" U.S. VP utilizing his position of power to halt funding of $1B to a foreign power for a favor - and, that may actually be the direction the DNI is going.

What 'favor' 1st? 

The IG is NOT required to keep that information confidential - only those parts of the complaint that contain/address confidential  material/matter/information.

Really 1st?

Perhaps it's YOU need to learn what a consent waiver is and actually READ what 50 USCA § 403-3h § 3033. Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (A) REQUIRES of the IG. 

Can you manage to scroll up and read that code 1st? 

I know some people have issues understanding the concept of consent but SHEESH!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.25  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.23    one month ago
Those that gave the whistleblowe/leaker  information they may not had the need to know should be open to prosecution for leaking classified/need to know information.

What if the moon was in Leo at the time of the call. Sheesh. 

Aren't there enough actual FACTS for you to comment on? 

More than likely they have signed a confidentiality agreement with the White House or State Department.

The court ruled that NDA's are not valid when in government service and wrongdoing is involved. 

If a person leaked this information for personal/political reasons, which it looks like that is the case, as referenced by "their" cozy relationship with Biden and Schiff.

Other than innuendo and speculation, what documented evidence do you have of that? 

My first response answers that.

So the evidentiary equivalent of a fever dream. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.26  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.25    one month ago

Ahhh, look. A triggered liberal that needs to lash out.

"What if the moon was in Leo at the time of the call. Sheesh. "

This comment by itself shows you have no interest in the truth. The only thing you care about is "Orange man bad, everybody that does not like Orange man is good."

Let me ask you a hypothetical...

If someone went to, say, a republican congressman and his staff, possibly 18 days before that person went to the IG, to say President Obama made an inappropriate phone call to a foreign leader, based on second hand information, and that republican congressman started screeching, once again, impeach the President, before any information on that call came out.

Later reports showed the person making the complaint had close ties to a republican candidate for president, and was known to have close relationships with the congressman's staff. Then the congressman not only said the person would not testify in person, but have a written report instead.

Wouldn't you want to know who the person is, or at least know who the people that gave the other person the information? I know you would be here screeching and demanding that person get doxxed, but you wouldn't admit it now.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.27  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.26    one month ago
This comment by itself shows you have no interest in the truth.

That from the guy that posted this bullshit:

If a person leaked this information for personal/political reasons, which it looks like that is the case, as referenced by "their" cozy relationship with Biden and Schiff.

Neither the ICIG or the DNI have made any claim that ANY leaks have occurred. You just throw shit at the NT wall and expect it to stand. Then, like Trump, you try to connect that bullshit to Biden and Schiff and have the stones to talk about 'interest in the truth'. 

It drips with hypocrisy. 

Let me ask you a hypothetical...

No.

How about you answer my question:

Other than innuendo and speculation, what documented evidence do you have of that?
 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.28  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.26    one month ago
Ahhh, look. A triggered liberal that needs to lash out.

Ahhh, look. A Trump sycophant desperately trying to be relevant.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.29  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.28    one month ago

Well, I'm done. It is obvious the truth eludes you, or you just accept that you prefer to be in the dark.

Now, go gloat to your friends that you "beat" someone. I know you will.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.30  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @1.1.26    one month ago
Wouldn't you want to know who the person is, or at least know who the people that gave the other person the information?

I'd want to know what their complaint was, did they follow whistleblower protocol and if there was any validity to their complaint. I wouldn't need to know whether others might consider them "partisan" or not. This nonsense belief that just because your politics fall on one side of the fence or the other determines whether you can be truthful or not is nonsense. There are many Republicans who are loyal to this country and want the best for us despite the fact that there are also many who have apparently pledged their loyalty to Trump instead of our nation and have lied on his behalf to hide the truth. I want the facts of the incidents, no matter who they come from or which party they expose. If the many partisan Republicans had been able to produce some actual crime that Hillary had knowingly committed I would want her arrested and prosecuted for such a crime. The fact that at least 8 partisan Republican investigations turned up nothing shows that the investigations were pure partisan politics and had no foundation in any wrongdoing. With the first investigation of Trump and his cohorts we saw indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. That proves to me there was something behind the accusations. The 10 clear counts of obstruction laid out are also damning. What does Trump and his sycophants have? Wild debunked conspiracy theories about Joe Biden and his son that Trump is begging a foreign government to investigate in an effort to discredit Biden in an upcoming national election, and trump was using congressionally approved military aid to an ally as leverage. It's criminal and will all eventually be exposed. I've no doubt there will be classes taught in colleges across the country on Trumps criminal activity much like there are for Nixon today. The records, any tapes, as they come out, will no doubt show how criminal he has been and his followers will later abandon him as the facts against him pile up. They'll claim he was a useful idiot that got conservatives what they wanted and was expendable because he's not really one of them anyway and they'll point to his having been a Democrat most of his life before changing horses out of convenience.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.31  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.29    one month ago
Well, I'm done.

You started? 

It is obvious the truth eludes you, or you just accept that you prefer to be in the dark.

If I counted on your 'contributions' for truth, that would be true. Since I don't, I have no problem at all grasping the truth. 

.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.32  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.30    one month ago
I've no doubt there will be classes taught in colleges across the country on Trumps criminal activity

What criminal activity? Be specific with charges filed or convictions.

Please don't say..."any day now". It makes you look petty and that you are still holding out for Chris Christie to be indicted for Bridgegate.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  1stwarrior @1    one month ago
So the "Dems/Lib" don't want to have an open hearing with the accuser facing the accused. 

Why would they?  An open hearing would expose more of the false accusations they have been pushing since they lost the election.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2    one month ago

It might go the other way, proving the accusations.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2    one month ago
An open hearing would expose more of the false accusations..

False accusations? You are aware that trump admitted to the crime, then repeated the same crime on live national TV just a few days later? Rudy confirmed it, Trump confirmed it, the call logs confirmed it and the WB confirmed it. Where is the, "false" part? 

[deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.3  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.2    one month ago

No he asked for help in investigating corruption. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.2    one month ago
False accusations?

Ummm, yes.  

You are aware that trump admitted to the crime, then repeated the same crime on live national TV just a few days later?

Then why is he not in custody?

removed for context

Ummm, I'm from Pennsylvania.  If you're going to make stupid comments like that at least look at my profile first.  [deleted]

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.5  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.2    one month ago

What "crime" did Trump commit?  Be specific.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.6  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.5    one month ago

512

Note the US Code cited on her statement. LOOK IT UP!

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.7  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @1.2.3    one month ago

No he asked for help in investigating corruption. 

Any proof of any corruption? No. Just trump lying again. The only one that is corrupt is trump. 
 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.4    one month ago
Then why is he not in custody?

Investigation.....charges......trial...... There is a process to go through..

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @1.2.3    one month ago

No, he mentioned Biden and his son by name.  Had he used just the word "corruption" then he would not have hung himself.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.10  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @1.2.6    one month ago

You DIDN'T answer the question.  SPECIFICALLY - what "PROVEN" crime did Trump commit.  Innuendo is not an answer.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.11  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.2    one month ago

There was no crime, the release of the full transcript proved that.

 
 
 
lady in black
1.2.12  lady in black  replied to  WallyW @1.2.11    one month ago

There are 20 minutes that we are not privy to so no, we have not seen the full transcript

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.13  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.10    one month ago
You DIDN'T answer the question.  SPECIFICALLY - what "PROVEN" crime did Trump commit.  Innuendo is not an answer.

You changed your question. Bad Form. 

It's still the same answer. 

I gave you the information 1st, I can't make you understand it.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.14  MUVA  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.9    one month ago

So?

 
 
 
Kavika
2  Kavika     one month ago
So the "Dems/Lib" don't want to have an open hearing with the accuser facing the accused.  Kinda violates the Constitution, doncha think???

No

In all criminal prosecutions,

This is not a criminal prosecution at this point.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @2    one month ago

But, if Adam Schiff gets his way, there will be a full hearing - something that Grand Juries are supposed to do.  IF Adam finally finds all the evidence he has been saying he has had for the past 3 years, then, yes, there will be a hearing and, if there is, Constitutionally, the RIGHT of being able to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1    one month ago
But, if Adam Schiff gets his way, there will be a full hearing - something that Grand Juries are supposed to do.  IF Adam finally finds all the evidence he has been saying he has had for the past 3 years, then, yes, there will be a hearing and, if there is, Constitutionally, the RIGHT of being able to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There WILL be a Grand Jury Investigation 1st, AFTER Trump is Impeached. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    one month ago

Wet dreams again? The Senate will not impeach period. The House sham hidden inquiry may produce impeachment there; but the Senate will not vote to impeach.

This shit show is getting more ridiculous by the minute. The Dems are going to pay for this bullshit come elections. A lot of those from purple states will not be coming back.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.2    one month ago
Wet dreams again?

Judging from you comment, you're had one. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @2.1.3    one month ago

Oh snap!jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.5  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    one month ago

Proof??  First - has Trump been impeached??  Nope.  Looks like no Grand Jury duty for you.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.6  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.5    one month ago
Proof?? 

Proof of what 1st? My prediction? 

First - has Trump been impeached?? 

Did you miss the word AFTER in my comment? 

Nope.  Looks like no Grand Jury duty for you.

I would NEVER be picked to be on a Grand Jury. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    one month ago

You are jumping ahead of yourself. You are going on the assumption that the Senate will actually vote to impeach. Maybe they will, maybe they won't but you are still jumping the gun here.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.8  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.7    one month ago
Maybe they will, maybe they won't

not a chance the senate will convict.

 the house will not even hold a vote to start the impeachment process.

it is all just a giant clown show.

.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.7    one month ago
You are jumping ahead of yourself. You are going on the assumption that the Senate will actually vote to impeach. Maybe they will, maybe they won't but you are still jumping the gun here.

Maybe being steeped in all this RW 'Get er done!' is rubbing off on me. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3  Paula Bartholomew    one month ago

Hell no, he should not be able to do by written word.  If he was stupid enough to get himself in this mess, then put him on the stand even if it is as a hostile witness.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1  bugsy  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3    one month ago

I agree completely.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  bugsy @3.1    one month ago

Thank you for that.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2  Dulay  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3    one month ago
 If he was stupid enough to get himself in this mess, then put him on the stand even if it is as a hostile witness.

Federal employees are obligated to report wrongdoing. 

 
 
 
JBB
3.2.1  JBB  replied to  Dulay @3.2    one month ago

To know of crimes and not report them is a crime...

Remember, this is true for everyone around Trump. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @3.2    one month ago

I owe NT an apology, I was on the wrong track and confusing the wb with those two morons who worked for Trump and his clown attorney to dig up dirt on Biden.

NOTE TO SELF - don't comment when sleep deprived from now on.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.3  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.2.2    one month ago

Pots and pots of good strong Pinon coffee will put a stop to that (sleep deprivation).

 
 
 
bugsy
4  bugsy    one month ago

I'm starting to believe there is no real, actual person,  "whistleblower". My guess is the person is a Schiff minion who had access to those who had access to listening in on the Trump calls, and simply reported back to Schiff when he found out what was on this call. More than likely, they have been waiting for a call like this so they can activate their activist lawyers and make up the "whistleblower" scenario.

There is too much in question.

The "whistleblower" went to Schiff and/or his minions before he went to the IG. The Schiff minions advised him, that among other things, that in order to be considered a whistleblower, he needed to go to the IG.

Why was there an 18 day space between the leaker going to Schiff and his minions and going to the IG? I guess it takes that long to activate the activist lawyer, come up with a story, and make sure everyone is on the same page before they go public with it.

Why did Pelosi put out a tweet days before the leaker was announced indicating she knew of the leaker?

These are only a few questions that need to be answered.

Democrats can go ahead and impeach the President, even if it is in secret. However, when it gets to the Senate, one of two things wil happen. Either McConnel will shut it down with a quick "no" vote, or he will hold an OPEN trial and bring out all of the misdeeds of the democrats.

Either way, democrats are in for a rude awakening in 2020. Many of them may as well go ahead and start packing out their bags.

 
 
 
Dulay
5  Dulay    one month ago
So the "Dems/Lib" don't want to have an open hearing with the accuser facing the accused.  Kinda violates the Constitution, doncha think???

Actually no. 

In all criminal prosecutions

Are you positing that an Impeachment Inquiry is a criminal prosecution 1st? Please tell me what lead you to that conclusion. 

 
 
 
squiggy
5.1  squiggy  replied to  Dulay @5    one month ago

‘No’ to which? Getting shellacked in the open?

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.1  MUVA  replied to  squiggy @5.1    one month ago

That would be yes.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.2  Dulay  replied to  squiggy @5.1    one month ago
‘No’ to which?

No to the only question you asked. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1.3  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @5.1.2    one month ago

He asked two questions - you have answered neither.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.3    one month ago
He asked two questions - you have answered neither.

You're right, it was no to this ridiculous comment:

Kinda violates the Constitution, doncha think???

Clear now 1st? 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.5  Dulay  replied to  squiggy @5.1    one month ago
Getting shellacked in the open?

If past is prologue, the Minority members of the Intelligence Committee couldn't shellac a board. The Minority on Judiciary are even worse. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @5    one month ago

Oh - the Whistle Blower is only going to be available for the Impeachment Inquiry???

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.1  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2    one month ago
Oh - the Whistle Blower is only going to be available for the Impeachment Inquiry???

Neither a vote on Articles of Impeachment or a Senate trial are criminal prosecutions either 1st. 

The irony is that now, with the Call Memo, the ICIG's finding, Trump's own admissions and Volker's texts, the whistleblower isn't even a necessary witness of fact anymore. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.2.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @5.2.1    one month ago

Since when is someone who is told something by someone who was told something factual?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.3  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2.2    one month ago
Since when is someone who is told something by someone who was told something factual?

The Call Memo was released by the WH. It is factual evidence.

The Call Memo bolsters the allegations in the Complaint.   

The ICIG report, the Complaint and the DNI counsel ruling are all factual evidence. 

The Volker opening statement and the texts are all factual evidence.

The texts show that Ambassador Taylor and Sondland talked about Trump withholding military aid until Zelensky did a press conference about Burisma and election meddling. 

Trump stated clearly, on live TV, what he wanted from Zelensky. See my 1.2.6 post. 

The WH admitted that the allegation in the Complaint that NSA lawyers ordered the Call Memo to be placed in a Code Name Security Server was a FACT, which bolsters the veracity of the content of the Complaint. 

Refute any of it 1st. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    one month ago

None of this matters. It's 100% political. There is so much real work to be done and the people we sent to Washington to get it done would rather go through this nonsense. They should all be ashamed of themselves and they deserve to not be reelected.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago
None of this matters.

I'm pretty sure that most of it does. 

It's 100% political.

Yep, the Constitution limits it that way. 

There is so much real work to be done and the people we sent to Washington to get it done would rather go through this nonsense. They should all be ashamed of themselves and they deserve to not be reelected.

Are you under the illusion that the House isn't doing anything but the Impeachment Inquiry? Go look at the House calendar, it will dissuade you of that illusion.

BTW, WTF is on the Senate's calendar?  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.1.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @6.1    one month ago

The Constitution is not political.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.2  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1.1    one month ago
The Constitution is not political.

I didn't say it is 1st, READ MORE SLOWLY. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.1.3  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @6.1.2    one month ago

It's 100% political.

Yep, the Constitution limits it that way. 

Rethink your comment.  Looks like you just said the Constitution is political.

Read what you write before you hit "Post".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1.3    one month ago

Yup, and the Constitution says the House has the right to impeach - not the speaker and not a committee run by a partisan hack! The "people's House" should be heard - all 435 members!

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.5  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1.3    one month ago
Rethink your comment.  Looks like you just said the Constitution is political.

Grammar 101.

What is "it" in my sentence 1st?  

"IT" sure as hell isn't the Constitution. 

Read what you write before you hit "Post".

Read before you critique. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    one month ago
Yup, and the Constitution says the House has the right to impeach - not the speaker and not a committee run by a partisan hack! 

Actually, the Constitution says that the House has 'the sole POWER of Impeachment'. 

The Constitution ALSO says:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

The "people's House" should be heard - all 435 members!

If only I COULD stifle some of the GOP morons. Every time I see Nunes I want smack him. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @6.1.6    one month ago
If only I COULD stifle some of the GOP morons.

The dems are doing a good job of stifling. You should be proud of those little totalitarians! Right now the democrats are setting another new precedent. One they are going to hate when they are in the minority - which is only about a year away!

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.7    one month ago
The dems are doing a good job of stifling.

How so Vic? 

 
 
 
squiggy
7  squiggy    one month ago

All true. The People will speak in a year - although half are gonna really be snappin.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8  Vic Eldred    one month ago

It looks like the informer (I refuse to call him a WB) probably won't have to testify at all:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/schiff-whistleblower-testimony-may-not-be-necessary

Obviously the informant is petrified of scrutiny. It's ok, we all know he is part of the resistance. The fact is that the only thing relevant is the phone call and we have that. The democrats are off looking to find some evidence that there was some behind the scenes deal or maybe they can get a contradiction out of one of these secret interviews. The media will continue to promote the impeachment narrative. Activists will continue to conduct polls in which a minimum of Republicans are polled. All of which should at least damage the President politically, or so it would seem....until you look at the excitement at those Trump rallies!

The game changer in all of this would be when the Court decides that the President is right - without a vote there isn't enough legitimacy to all these requests for documents & witnesses! Then Nancy Pelosi will have a real decision to make. The longer it drags out, the more it's going to look exactly like what it is.

 
 
 
PJ
9  PJ    one month ago

The whistle blower must be protected from the President, his supporters and the republican leadership.  They cannot be trusted to adhere to our Constitution and our laws as they have shown time after time.    

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @9    one month ago

The whistleblower should be protected at this point. 

If he was the only source of damaging information about Trump, there would be a need to vet him through public testimony.  But that is not the case. Trump's own version of the phone call implicates Trump in an impeachable offense, and serves as verification of the whistleblowers account. 

Plus, other information has verified the description of events. Trump and his supporters want to blabber on and on and on about "the whistleblower" simply to distract from what has been revealed about Trump and Giuliani. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    one month ago
Trump's own version of the phone call implicates Trump in an impeachable offense

Reminds me of Nixon when he proclaimed in the Frost interview "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal". Trump is committing crimes publicly with the hope that his base will just accept that if the President does it, that must mean it's not illegal, just as Nixon once thought.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.1    one month ago

I was reading through some stuff about US V. Nixon and saw this little gem: 

Hoping that Jaworski and the public would be satisfied, Nixon turned over edited transcripts of 43 conversations, including portions of 20 conversations demanded by the subpoena. James D. St. Clair, Nixon's attorney, then requested Judge John Sirica of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to quash the subpoena. While arguing before Sirica, St. Clair stated that: 
The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

I lived through that whole thing and I had NO IDEA that Nixon's lawyer actually made a galactically delusional statement like that to the SCOTUS.

When I read the letter from Cipollone to Congress and ignore the obfuscation, it reads much the same. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10  JohnRussell    one month ago
The whistle blower must be protected from the President, his supporters and the republican leadership.  They cannot be trusted to adhere to our Constitution and our laws as they have shown time after time.  

There is no reason not to try and ensure the whistleblowers safety by keeping the identity secret. 

Just this morning,  again Trump called for the whistleblowers identity to be revealed.  He is trying to create a diversion from the revelations. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @10    one month ago

Say John - did you know that Trump is a whistleblower???  He has shown how the Vice President of the U.S. (at the time), used his political force as the VP of the U.S. to bribe a foreign power, by withholding funding that had already been approved by the U.S. Congress to fund the foreign power for their aid and support.

Now THAT is an abuse of power.  Why don't you show some of those abuses????  Just because his name isn't Trump?

 
 
 
PJ
10.1.1  PJ  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.2  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1    one month ago
He has shown how the Vice President of the U.S. (at the time), used his political force as the VP of the U.S. to bribe a foreign power

Bribe a foreign power to do WHAT 1st? 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.1.3  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @10.1.2    one month ago

I don't know Dulay - I'm not privy to all of that VP's telephone calls/actions.

But, this should put salve on your itch to know.

Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

"Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."

In 2016, and with the support of other world leaders, Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion of U.S. aid unless Ukraine’s leaders fired the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for being too soft on corruption⁠⁠—which they did. 

Former Vice President  Joe Biden , now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.

He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1    one month ago
He has shown how the Vice President of the U.S. (at the time), used his political force as the VP of the U.S. to bribe a foreign power

When did he do that? All he's done is repeated debunked right wing conspiracy theories and then ask a foreign government to investigate the ridiculous conspiracy theories in an effort to discredit a potential political opponent in an upcoming national election. I have yet to hear any actual facts about Biden doing anything wrong. All we've heard is that yes, the Obama administration pressured Ukraine to fire a corrupt prosecutor who was accused by many in the Ukrainian government of protecting the corrupt pro-Russian Ukrainian officials who had been selling out their country to Putin. The pressure was not an attempt to coerce a foreign government to help Obama, or anyone else in his administration, win an election. The only one committing a crime is Donald Trump by abusing his power in an effort to help himself, not the Ukrainians and not the American people. Sure, Donald might be such a narcissist that he believes himself the second coming of Christ and thus the ends justify the means, where breaking the law to hold onto power, in his warped mind, is justified. But the fact is Trump has broken the law and needs to be held to account. Biden didn't break the law no matter how many right wing conspiracy theories are invented claiming he did. If there is evidence that he did, then Trump should produce it, but he hasn't which means he's got nothing and was grasping at straws when begging the Ukrainian President to do him a favor by finding some dirt on Biden who Trump mentions by name in that phone call.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.5  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.3    one month ago
I don't know Dulay - I'm not privy to all of that VP's telephone calls/actions.
But, this should put salve on your itch to know.

I have decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and edit my original reply to your post. 

Please explain WHY you attributed the first two paragraphs of your block quote to the Solomon article 1st? 

 
 
 
PJ
10.1.6  PJ  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.1.4    one month ago

Exactly.  And anyone who claims that Biden did something wrong is an idiot. jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.7  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.3    one month ago
I don't know Dulay - I'm not privy to all of that VP's telephone calls/actions.

Yet you made a fallacious allegation anyway.

Do you think that bullshit is a 'thoughtful, relevant contribution' 1st?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.1.8  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @10.1.7    one month ago

You are just about at the point of being totally ignored.  You offer no answers - all you do is ride in as though you're the Inquisition and all of us have to abide by your total lack of desire to contribute to the discussion unless it's to denigrate others to heighten your status.

Sorry, but I can't take any more of your total lack of "thoughtful, relevant contributions" that have no meaning nor bearing to topics being presented.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.1.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.8    one month ago

What answers have you offered ?

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.10  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.8    one month ago
You are just about at the point of being totally ignored.  You offer no answers

That's pretty funny coming from you 1st.

Let's take a look at this seed. Here's a list of the comments that I made that are answers: 

1.1.7

1.1.12

1.1.17

1.2.6

3.2

5

5.1.2

5.1.4

5.2.1

5.2.3

Now 5.2.3 is one that I posted multiple facts, NONE of which you bothered to refute. 

Would you like me to run through the seed and post a list of all of the questions I asked YOU that you failed to answer 1st? 

all you do is ride in as though you're the Inquisition 

You made another funny 1st. Any review of this seed will prove to any thinking person that YOU have asked ME plenty of questions which I have answered. 

and all of us have to abide by your total lack of desire to contribute to the discussion unless it's to denigrate others to heighten your status.

Wow, the hits just keep on coming.

I invite all members to review this seed and count how many SUBSTANTIVE comments I have 'contributed' verses the other members here. 

Sorry, but I can't take any more of your total lack of "thoughtful, relevant contributions" that have no meaning nor bearing to topics being presented.

Oh and the cherry on top. 

"I'm rubber you're glue" 

That comment is pitiful.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  PJ @10.1.6    one month ago
And anyone who claims that Biden did something wrong is an idiot.

It really is amazing that his defenders will ignore his actual words, where Trump was asking for a favor while holding back military funding, specifically naming his political opponent in the call as the desired target of a requested investigation right after a FOX news polls had Biden beating Trump in a mock election by double digits, and whine and complain saying no one should prejudge the Presidents words and that he should be "innocent till proven guilty", but they latch on to the Presidents repeating of a conspiracy theory about Joe Biden and act as if it's gospel and that somehow it's been proven that Joe Biden somehow broke the law not only before anything has been proven but even before any investigation has been done. Trump is asking for the dirt, and then basically telling the media "There's lots of dirt on Biden, we know its there, we're just asking Ukraine to help us locate that dirt, but we know its dirty, you can believe that, but we don't have any of it yet, but be prepared, cause its dirty...". And the bizarre thing is that most of his defenders who were literally just saying "innocent till proven guilty" are immediately saying things like "(Trump) has shown how the Vice President of the U.S. (at the time), used his political force as the VP of the U.S. to bribe a foreign power".

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.1.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.1.11    one month ago

Damn accurate depiction, yet, Trump and his offenders, will somehow defy the reality, of THE REALITY.

A damn dangerous trek, that is long under way and over weight, cause to get the skinny on the truth, a never ending wait, they again, over weight on, cause the scales surrounding Trump, shield him from justice, 

and that just isn't a justice any should ever accept as 'the reality'.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Just Jim NC TttH
al Jizzerror
Freefaller
The Magic Eight Ball
Jasper2529
Dulay
Snuffy
Dean Moriarty
GaJenn78


44 visitors