Dems are attacking the Whistleblowers

[jc456]

Yes, I know, your mind is made up because you know everything Trump has done over the last few years.

Me, I don't have that super power.

Well, prove what he said and John Fitzpatrick said was wrong

 

[BlueGin]

If they’re lying they’re not whistleblowers, by definition.
A whistleblower is somebody who possesses information about a crime wrongdoing and releases it.
Making things up is not information.

Interesting commentary coming from a leftie pretending to be a conservative.

I’m thinking you have no standing accusing others of “lying “.

 

[elektra]

My evidence? Um, I'm not Jack Smith. I'm waiting to see what happens.

I know what I've "heard", and that's it. That's what a court case is for.

Calm down, slugger.

That you are not, you are not jack smith, jack smith needed no evidence, just hate. Hell, Jack Smith does not even need a law, he makes it up as he goes.

 

[elektra]

Here is the article from The New Republic...

Raskin: Star Hunter Biden Witnesses Have Already Undermined GOP’s Case

There are two big flaws when it comes to Republicans’ “whistleblowers.”

newrepublic.com

The New Republic is a rag.

Everything is, Republican bad, Democrat good, so the whistleblowers, are Republican's? Very tricky, the whistleblowers, are the Democrat's whistle blowers, seeing how they are Democrats!

a quote from your link

There are two big flaws when it comes to Republicans’ “whistleblowers.”​

 

[konradv]

didn't you all say all whistleblowers should be heard and believed? Why are you all always hypocrites? I don't get it. It really means that much to you personally to destroy your character?

No one ever said that about the whistleblowers. What has been said is “where are the whistleblowers?” How can we hear someone you can’t even find?

 

[Mac1958]

Well, prove what he said and John Fitzpatrick said was wrong

I don't have to. I can just relax and let it play out. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, and I'm not on the jury. So I don't have to make ignorant assumptions and predictions.

But regardless of what happens, I won't be playing the victim and screaming that everyone is corrupt but me.

 

[Mac1958]

That you are not, you are not jack smith, jack smith needed no evidence, just hate. Hell, Jack Smith does not even need a law, he makes it up as he goes.

So all the evidence he presents at trial, including photos, videos, documents and sworn testimony from Trump staff will be fabricated?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Interesting commentary coming from a leftie pretending to be a conservative.

I’m thinking you have no standing accusing others of “lying “.

 

[22lcidw]

There is no way that Donald Trump has done all of this as crimes. Just watching TV over many decades and seeing Joe caught lying and copying others in speeches and today no Prog pundit mentions it is disgusting. 50 years of Joe. Americans deserve better. Joe promoted himself as a TV evangelist at the beginning. Now he is Epstein, Sodom and Gomorrah, Pimp, and Drug pusher. And this is Prog values. I get that the other side is not chaste. And that is/was used against them to get where we are now. The only way to succeed is to eliminate conservative Christians, Conservative Jews and Islamic men and women in our nation.

 

[elektra]

So all the evidence he presents at trial, including photos, videos, documents and sworn testimony from Trump staff will be fabricated?

Are you familiar with the history of Jack Smith? I can not quote or paraphrase from memory so I wont pretend to be the expert.

Evidence, first you must have the law that was broke. That is the problem. No law was broke. That is where Jack Smith comes in, a prosecutor who is willing to claim a law was broke, and apply a law, even if it does not apply.

A red flag for me is, this prosecutor was at the Hague. Jack Smith was brought back by the Attorney General for this particular case. Why did they have to bring a prosecutor from so far away? There are dozens of prosecutors in Washington D.C..

Jack Smith does have a bit of a history for prosecutor misconduct. Two of his cases stand out. Prosecuting John Edwards, and I think the other was the governor of Virginia. He lost the John Edwards case, as he should of, but it was enough to destroy Edwards. The other was overturned by the supreme court, a unanimous decision.

 

[Mac1958]

Are you familiar with the history of Jack Smith? I can not quote or paraphrase from memory so I wont pretend to be the expert.

Evidence, first you must have the law that was broke. That is the problem. No law was broke. That is where Jack Smith comes in, a prosecutor who is willing to claim a law was broke, and apply a law, even if it does not apply.

A red flag for me is, this prosecutor was at the Hague. Jack Smith was brought back by the Attorney General for this particular case. Why did they have to bring a prosecutor from so far away? There are dozens of prosecutors in Washington D.C..

Jack Smith does have a bit of a history for prosecutor misconduct. Two of his cases stand out. Prosecuting John Edwards, and I think the other was the governor of Virginia. He lost the John Edwards case, as he should of, but it was enough to destroy Edwards. The other was overturned by the supreme court, a unanimous decision.

That appears to be a "yes".

 

[elektra]

That appears to be a "yes".

yes, as in jack smith is prosecuting an innocent man by applying a law to an act that was not a crime, and an act that does not coincide with what the crime is, espionage.

 

[Mac1958]

yes, as in jack smith is prosecuting an innocent man by applying a law to an act that was not a crime, and an act that does not coincide with what the crime is, espionage.

The connection is that the Espionage Act says that documents relating to national defense don't fall under the category of classification. So Trump didn't declassify them, because he couldn't. He was lying. Smith isn't saying Trump is a spy.

But as I originally said, every bit of evidence will be denied and dismissed, called faked and corruput, not because it's a lie, but because of the defendant. That's baked in, and it's a shame.

 

[jc456]

I don't have to. I can just relax and let it play out. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, and I'm not on the jury. So I don't have to make ignorant assumptions and predictions.

But regardless of what happens, I won't be playing the victim and screaming that everyone is corrupt but me.

So can I, Why did you challenge me?

 

[Mac1958]

So can I, Why did you challenge me?

You posted to me first. If you don't like that, too bad.

 

[jc456]

You posted to me first. If you don't like that, too bad.

Well you posted first

 

[themirrorthief]

If they’re lying they’re not whistleblowers, by definition.
A whistleblower is somebody who possesses information about a crime wrongdoing and releases it.
Making things up is not information.

and you would know ronnie

 

[konradv]

and you would know ronnie

It’s the internet. You can be whoever you want to be. There are many on the board posing as human.