Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?
Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.
Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.
Did anything happen to the woman who lied about Kavennaugh (after 100 years....) ?
How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?
Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.
Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.
I think you are spinning it from pretty thin thread.
I don't know of many - maybe not any - whistle blowers from the Intellegence community that have come out front and center by choice. Can you think of any?
I think it's risky on many fronts both to them, to their jobs, and to their families. That's a big reason why there is confidentiality. Trump is also well known for retaliation.
And - again - there is still the matter of what he reported, the actual facts of the case.
Only an anti-American traitor (pronounced: "Democrat") would afford cover to the guy who gave Hysterical House Dems leaked, 2nd-hand ammo to put this country through the divisive, hyper-partisan BS they did. Screw them and screw him.A very wrong thing to do.
If you read the report (I just skimmed) - it covers more than the phone call but events surrounding it as well.
I don't see anything questionable and again, neither did the IG. I don't see at all why it's an issue.
It's an issue because our stance is that he is not an actual whistleblower, he's merely an informant.
Well that isn't what the IG thinks, I tend to go with their assessment especially since they have all the first hand material.
If the IG considers him a whistleblower (which I didn't see any evidence of) then he's part of the conspiracy, and should be removed immediately. Because the article clearly states that only a person with first hand information can be a whistleblower.
That makes no sense.
It's all part of a "vast conspiracy" - and everyone who doesn't walk in step becomes part of it.
The IG outlined what they found - and I see no reason to doubt it that he had direct knowledge (which the IG seems to consider the same as first hand) of at least some of what he reported and that was all that was required.
All of this really distracts from what was in the report and what has been corroborated as factual.
So what you're saying is that if it is a conspiracy, just move along? Nothing to see here folks. And what if this was happening to Obama by the Republicans? You know, keeping these people secret, not allowing factual witnesses that would prove the conspiracy to testify, hiding their previous testimony, you would be just fine with forgetting about all that?
How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?
Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.
Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.
I think you are spinning it from pretty thin thread.
I don't know of many - maybe not any - whistle blowers from the Intellegence community that have come out front and center by choice. Can you think of any?
I think it's risky on many fronts both to them, to their jobs, and to their families. That's a big reason why there is confidentiality. Trump is also well known for retaliation.
And - again - there is still the matter of what he reported, the actual facts of the case.
We've been over the facts of the case in a hundred threads. Trump asked Zelensky for a favor, that favor was not contingent on US aid, and the aid was released by Trump before it was even due to be released. There was no quid pro quo because Trump never got anything before or after releasing the aid. And Biden was not his rival because nobody knew who his rival would be.
As far as this whistleblower stuff goes, you just want to sweep that under the rug.
I am not much of a believer in vast conspiracies - the more complicated, the more involved, the more unlikely it is to be kept secret.
If a whistle blower reported this same stuff on Obama - I would be angry and disgusted, and disappointed at Obama. The report was corroborated, the testimony pretty damning. I would want to hear from any witness' directly involved as well, under oath.
I don't care who the president is - it is an abuse of power to strong-arm a nation into finding political dirt on a personal opponent. It is not in our national interest. Where we used to draw lines, suddenly - what lines. It's all ok I guess.
I really don't and wouldn't care WHO the whistle blower (other than simple curiosity) because protecting whistleblowers, while at the same time insuring there is a process to prove their claims are credible enough to go forward, is important. And - it used have strong bipartisan support.
Only an anti-American traitor (pronounced: "Democrat") would afford cover to the guy who gave Hysterical House Dems leaked, 2nd-hand ammo to put this country through the divisive, hyper-partisan BS they did. Screw them and screw him.A very wrong thing to do.
Many countries have corrupt leaders that abuse their power … America isn't one of 'em but I expect no leftarded traitor to see it.Only and "anti-American traitor" would support a corrupt president in his attempt to abuse power. This isn't Russia. Yet.Only an anti-American traitor (pronounced: "Democrat") would afford cover to the guy who gave Hysterical House Dems leaked, 2nd-hand ammo to put this country through the divisive, hyper-partisan BS they did. Screw them and screw him.
How pivotal was this guy in moving forward with impeachment ?
Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.
Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.
I think you are spinning it from pretty thin thread.
I don't know of many - maybe not any - whistle blowers from the Intellegence community that have come out front and center by choice. Can you think of any?
I think it's risky on many fronts both to them, to their jobs, and to their families. That's a big reason why there is confidentiality. Trump is also well known for retaliation.
And - again - there is still the matter of what he reported, the actual facts of the case.
We've been over the facts of the case in a hundred threads. Trump asked Zelensky for a favor, that favor was not contingent on US aid, and the aid was released by Trump before it was even due to be released. There was no quid pro quo because Trump never got anything before or after releasing the aid. And Biden was not his rival because nobody knew who his rival would be.
As far as this whistleblower stuff goes, you just want to sweep that under the rug.
That's opinion - your interpretation (and yes, my opinion is my interpretation) - but there was a clear attempt to withhold aid, approved by Congress to pressure Ukraine into ANNOUNCING an investigation. Biden was and is his strongest rival. Everyone knew he was going to run and would likely poll strongest against Trump AND most of the other likely candidates are much further left. It's silly and disingenuous to think otherwise, so don't insult me with that.
You and I both know politics (on both sides) is full of dirt. This is just one example.
It's an issue because our stance is that he is not an actual whistleblower, he's merely an informant.
Well that isn't what the IG thinks, I tend to go with their assessment especially since they have all the first hand material.
If the IG considers him a whistleblower (which I didn't see any evidence of) then he's part of the conspiracy, and should be removed immediately. Because the article clearly states that only a person with first hand information can be a whistleblower.
That makes no sense.
It's all part of a "vast conspiracy" - and everyone who doesn't walk in step becomes part of it.
The IG outlined what they found - and I see no reason to doubt it that he had direct knowledge (which the IG seems to consider the same as first hand) of at least some of what he reported and that was all that was required.
All of this really distracts from what was in the report and what has been corroborated as factual.
So what you're saying is that if it is a conspiracy, just move along? Nothing to see here folks. And what if this was happening to Obama by the Republicans? You know, keeping these people secret, not allowing factual witnesses that would prove the conspiracy to testify, hiding their previous testimony, you would be just fine with forgetting about all that?
I am not much of a believer in vast conspiracies - the more complicated, the more involved, the more unlikely it is to be kept secret.
If a whistle blower reported this same stuff on Obama - I would be angry and disgusted, and disappointed at Obama. The report was corroborated, the testimony pretty damning. I would want to hear from any witness' directly involved as well, under oath.
I don't care who the president is - it is an abuse of power to strong-arm a nation into finding political dirt on a personal opponent. It is not in our national interest. Where we used to draw lines, suddenly - what lines. It's all ok I guess.
I really don't and wouldn't care WHO the whistle blower (other than simple curiosity) because protecting whistleblowers, while at the same time insuring there is a process to prove their claims are credible enough to go forward, is important. And - it used have strong bipartisan support.
Why?A very wrong thing to do.
Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.
You guys are just nuts.
Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?
What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.
Individually? Not very. He started the investigation going with the report. Everything in has been independently corroborated, and people testified under oath. There is nothing that knowing who he is that would change the information already there. Other than subject him to harm.
Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.
I think you are spinning it from pretty thin thread.
I don't know of many - maybe not any - whistle blowers from the Intellegence community that have come out front and center by choice. Can you think of any?
I think it's risky on many fronts both to them, to their jobs, and to their families. That's a big reason why there is confidentiality. Trump is also well known for retaliation.
And - again - there is still the matter of what he reported, the actual facts of the case.
We've been over the facts of the case in a hundred threads. Trump asked Zelensky for a favor, that favor was not contingent on US aid, and the aid was released by Trump before it was even due to be released. There was no quid pro quo because Trump never got anything before or after releasing the aid. And Biden was not his rival because nobody knew who his rival would be.
As far as this whistleblower stuff goes, you just want to sweep that under the rug.
That's opinion - your interpretation (and yes, my opinion is my interpretation) - but there was a clear attempt to withhold aid, approved by Congress to pressure Ukraine into ANNOUNCING an investigation. Biden was and is his strongest rival. Everyone knew he was going to run and would likely poll strongest against Trump AND most of the other likely candidates are much further left. It's silly and disingenuous to think otherwise, so don't insult me with that.
You and I both know politics (on both sides) is full of dirt. This is just one example.
What I say is not interpretation, it's definition of words.
favor
[ fey-ver ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR favor ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
something done or granted out of goodwill, rather than from justice or for remuneration; a kind act: to ask a favor.
Definition of favor | Dictionary.com
See what I'm talking about? Actual words and definitions.
Now if you challenge me, then please show me in the call where Trump told Zelensky the aid was based on his cooperation. You can't show me that because Trump never said it. It's your "interpretation" of what you heard, not actual words. And it's not even your interpretation, it's what the commies told you theirs was.
Well that isn't what the IG thinks, I tend to go with their assessment especially since they have all the first hand material.
If the IG considers him a whistleblower (which I didn't see any evidence of) then he's part of the conspiracy, and should be removed immediately. Because the article clearly states that only a person with first hand information can be a whistleblower.
That makes no sense.
It's all part of a "vast conspiracy" - and everyone who doesn't walk in step becomes part of it.
The IG outlined what they found - and I see no reason to doubt it that he had direct knowledge (which the IG seems to consider the same as first hand) of at least some of what he reported and that was all that was required.
All of this really distracts from what was in the report and what has been corroborated as factual.
So what you're saying is that if it is a conspiracy, just move along? Nothing to see here folks. And what if this was happening to Obama by the Republicans? You know, keeping these people secret, not allowing factual witnesses that would prove the conspiracy to testify, hiding their previous testimony, you would be just fine with forgetting about all that?
I am not much of a believer in vast conspiracies - the more complicated, the more involved, the more unlikely it is to be kept secret.
If a whistle blower reported this same stuff on Obama - I would be angry and disgusted, and disappointed at Obama. The report was corroborated, the testimony pretty damning. I would want to hear from any witness' directly involved as well, under oath.
I don't care who the president is - it is an abuse of power to strong-arm a nation into finding political dirt on a personal opponent. It is not in our national interest. Where we used to draw lines, suddenly - what lines. It's all ok I guess.
I really don't and wouldn't care WHO the whistle blower (other than simple curiosity) because protecting whistleblowers, while at the same time insuring there is a process to prove their claims are credible enough to go forward, is important. And - it used have strong bipartisan support.
Really? So why didn't I see you here when DumBama held back documents subpoenaed by the Republican Congress during Fast and Furious? Not a word out of you that I can recall. I don't remember you saying that he should be impeached for obstruction of justice. I don't recall you demanding Hillary's removal from the race after it was discovered that she and the DNC paid a foreign ex-agent to get material from the Russian government for dirt on Trump. I don't recall you taking a stance on anything going on under Obama. You were just dandy with that.
Why?A very wrong thing to do.
Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.
You guys are just nuts.
Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?
What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.
It is not illegal. There is no rule/law saying a whistleblower has his name hidden. He is protected at his job and position, but his name is not
protected, with the exception of the IG. Plus to be a "real" whistleblower, it has to be something you can verify and attest to, first hand. He can't
do that.
Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.
I think you are spinning it from pretty thin thread.
I don't know of many - maybe not any - whistle blowers from the Intellegence community that have come out front and center by choice. Can you think of any?
I think it's risky on many fronts both to them, to their jobs, and to their families. That's a big reason why there is confidentiality. Trump is also well known for retaliation.
And - again - there is still the matter of what he reported, the actual facts of the case.
We've been over the facts of the case in a hundred threads. Trump asked Zelensky for a favor, that favor was not contingent on US aid, and the aid was released by Trump before it was even due to be released. There was no quid pro quo because Trump never got anything before or after releasing the aid. And Biden was not his rival because nobody knew who his rival would be.
As far as this whistleblower stuff goes, you just want to sweep that under the rug.
That's opinion - your interpretation (and yes, my opinion is my interpretation) - but there was a clear attempt to withhold aid, approved by Congress to pressure Ukraine into ANNOUNCING an investigation. Biden was and is his strongest rival. Everyone knew he was going to run and would likely poll strongest against Trump AND most of the other likely candidates are much further left. It's silly and disingenuous to think otherwise, so don't insult me with that.
You and I both know politics (on both sides) is full of dirt. This is just one example.
What I say is not interpretation, it's definition of words.
favor
[ fey-ver ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR favor ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
something done or granted out of goodwill, rather than from justice or for remuneration; a kind act: to ask a favor.
Definition of favor | Dictionary.com
See what I'm talking about? Actual words and definitions.
Now if you challenge me, then please show me in the call where Trump told Zelensky the aid was based on his cooperation. You can't show me that because Trump never said it. It's your "interpretation" of what you heard, not actual words. And it's not even your interpretation, it's what the commies told you theirs was.
We can play semantics all you want but you and I both know what "favor" means when the requestor is powerful, and is withholding something you need. We both know what "favor" means in politics. So don't play these games - it disengenius.
A very wrong thing to do.
Why?A very wrong thing to do.
Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.
You guys are just nuts.
Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?
What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.
Frank, Nixon fked up, he should have yelled Gorbachev and that’s why he was taping the demofks!! It seems as long as you yell Russia, spying is okayProbably sucked the three of themAnother FAGGOT hiding in the CLOSET
That "whistleblower" gayed off with Schiff and both Obamas....
Yea hard to complain when "the left" does this all the time.This from the side that doxes gun owner (media) and staff of republicans (yeah Schiff release staffers info).Why?A very wrong thing to do.
Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.
You guys are just nuts.
Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?
What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.
But he cant blow the whistle on something he's not working in. Its spying not whistleblowing.
Another right wing lie.
So you agree Quid Pro Joe and his crackhead son need to be investigated for the millions crackhead was paid for a no-show job he was unqualified for while Quid Pro was in charge of billions of our tax dollars going to the corrupt regime in the Ukraine, rightOther than trying to get the guy killed, what possible purpose does it serve?
For crying out loud, you people were bitching for five years because McConnell stated he wanted to see DumBama as a one-term President. Here you have a guy trying to undermine the Trump presidency, and no problem at all. Why? Because he's a Republican.
I could only imagine if we did anything like this to Obama. There would have been riots in the street.Seems like THAT is what happened. There was no "Original Crime" here to merit the Muller farce. With Nixon there was a burglary. With Whitewater there was a Land Fraud deal. Here? Nothing.Precedents? Those got thrown out the window after they violated Trump's lawyer/client confidentiality. Now anything goes
Anything.
Investigations don't start out with the assumption of a crime - they start out to investigate whether or not a crime took place or, for that matter, wrong doing of some sort. Given that Russian interference was confirmed, multiple times, and weakness' in our electoral systems and that of other nations, exposed - an investigation was absolutely merited. It did not have to find a crime, but it did need to occur.
Or are you a ginormous hypocrite?
IF there is evidence to support an investigation, go for it. But do it legally through appropriate channels (Congress, DoJ). Just like any normal investigation is done outside of Trumpworld.
expect nothing but kindergarten rhetoric from classless rw pricks ......
