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.
There's nothing illegal about what Trump did. The DOJ is infested with coup plotters. You would scream bloody murder if Trump did exactly what you propose.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, rightFor 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.
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.
That part largely opinion. Abuse of power is not explicitly defined in any laws. Nor are "high crimes and misdemeanors".
What you are hanging your hat on is that if didn't commit a technical "crime" he did nothing wrong. Really? That is a dangerous path to go.
Are you going to be happy when some future Dem Prez scoundrel attempts to strong arm a foreign government into investigating his personal political rival in an upcoming election? I don't think so. And I wouldn't be either.
That is what makes you guys so dangerous. You are willing to accept this.
There's nothing illegal about what Trump did. The DOJ is infested with coup plotters. You would scream bloody murder if Trump did exactly what you propose.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, rightFor 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.
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.
That part largely opinion. Abuse of power is not explicitly defined in any laws. Nor are "high crimes and misdemeanors".
What you are hanging your hat on is that if didn't commit a technical "crime" he did nothing wrong. Really? That is a dangerous path to go.
Are you going to be happy when some future Dem Prez scoundrel attempts to strong arm a foreign government into investigating his personal political rival in an upcoming election? I don't think so. And I wouldn't be either.
That is what makes you guys so dangerous. You are willing to accept this.
There's nothing illegal about what Trump did. The DOJ is infested with coup plotters. You would scream bloody murder if Trump did exactly what you propose.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, rightFor 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.
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.
That part largely opinion. Abuse of power is not explicitly defined in any laws. Nor are "high crimes and misdemeanors".
What you are hanging your hat on is that if didn't commit a technical "crime" he did nothing wrong. Really? That is a dangerous path to go.
Are you going to be happy when some future Dem Prez scoundrel attempts to strong arm a foreign government into investigating his personal political rival in an upcoming election? I don't think so. And I wouldn't be either.
That is what makes you guys so dangerous. You are willing to accept this.
Revised Sept 30, 2019.He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.He’s going to be killed?? HuhAgain again, serves no other purpose than to try to get the whistleblower killed
Why else would Paul consider it necessary to reveal who he is?
Sends a message to future whistleblowers
Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.
.
the WB met every standard.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
How convenient..........and AFTER he filed is report.
Oops!
Total bullshit on your part.So? He isn't a whistleblower without first hand knowledge.He had zero first hand knowledge.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.
Undermining?
He reported on potentially illegal acts. Every item was independently confirmed. He did so through the right channels, and his report was deemed credible by his superiors.
But wait - it's Trump. Any whistle blower complaints about Trump is automatically "illicit".
You are essentially saying there can be no checks and balances on this presidents behavior from any quarter: from Congress, from the media, from civil servants. Checks and balances are now "coups".
& the IG investigated the people he named & found him & them to be credible.
which is why he's irrelevant now & doesn't need to come fwd since the info he gave was substantiated.
He had zero first hand knowledge.Other 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.
Undermining?
He reported on potentially illegal acts. Every item was independently confirmed. He did so through the right channels, and his report was deemed credible by his superiors.
But wait - it's Trump. Any whistle blower complaints about Trump is automatically "illicit".
You are essentially saying there can be no checks and balances on this presidents behavior from any quarter: from Congress, from the media, from civil servants. Checks and balances are now "coups".
Whines about "kindergarten rhetoric"..............uses "rw pricks".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 ......
It sure was. The WB himself admitted it. I don't know how it was checked since it was 90% wrong.He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.Why else would Paul consider it necessary to reveal who he is?
Sends a message to future whistleblowers
Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.
.
the WB met every standard.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:
Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
Exactly. The IG checks it for credibility. Checks and balances. Therefore it wasn't based solely on unsubstantiated or second hand information. It was deemed credible enough to go forward.
Just admit that you'll say anything to further the narrative on this smear campaign.
The only game is being plated by republicans. This trial has been a pathetic show by republicans. They have shown the nation how they willing to cover up the corruption of a president just as long as he's from their own party.Did 63 million voters vote to allow Trump to extort foreign governments in return for personal favors?The faggot is a "whistleblower" in the sense that "whistle" = "stiff c*ck"
Here's the message: You're not going to take down a sitting president and thwart the will of 63 million voters while hiding behind your blankie.
The message was well delivered by Rand Paul and hopefully the c*ckblower will continue to have uncontrolled, ill-timed bowel evacuations until it is locked up with its own kind for treason/sedition.
extortion is not one of the impeachment charges. If the House wasn't ready to impeach, they should have held off with their vote. We know they only wanted to extend the circus into the Senate proceedings. Good for the Republicans not allowing them to play their games.
You mean, the standards that were changed after he submitted his report so that he would qualify?He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.He’s going to be killed?? HuhAgain again, serves no other purpose than to try to get the whistleblower killed
Why else would Paul consider it necessary to reveal who he is?
Sends a message to future whistleblowers
Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.
.
the WB met every standard.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
You mean, like electing Biden..........who has been a swamp creature for almost 50 years? Never had a real job.Wrong. Electing a new president would drain the swamp.Time for Trump to FIRE everyone in DOJ who was appointed before he got elected. Now THAT would be draining the swamp.There's nothing illegal about what Trump did. The DOJ is infested with coup plotters. You would scream bloody murder if Trump did exactly what you propose.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, rightInvestigations 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.
Yes, it did.You mean, the standards that were changed after he submitted his report so that he would qualify?He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.He’s going to be killed?? Huh
Why else would Paul consider it necessary to reveal who he is?
Sends a message to future whistleblowers
Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.
.
the WB met every standard.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
Didn't happen.
It sure was. The WB himself admitted it. I don't know how it was checked since it was 90% wrong.He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.
Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.
.
the WB met every standard.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:
Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
Exactly. The IG checks it for credibility. Checks and balances. Therefore it wasn't based solely on unsubstantiated or second hand information. It was deemed credible enough to go forward.
Just admit that you'll say anything to further the narrative on this smear campaign.
More than 10 witnesses collaborated the whistleblowers story after the situation was investigated by the IG and deemed an urgent concern. So all this him hawing by the trump butt lickers is just a bunch of halitosis filled hot air.
None of those were first hand witnesses either.It sure was. The WB himself admitted it. I don't know how it was checked since it was 90% wrong.He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.
Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.
.
the WB met every standard.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:
Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
Exactly. The IG checks it for credibility. Checks and balances. Therefore it wasn't based solely on unsubstantiated or second hand information. It was deemed credible enough to go forward.
Just admit that you'll say anything to further the narrative on this smear campaign.
More than 10 witnesses collaborated the whistleblowers story after the situation was investigated by the IG and deemed an urgent concern. So all this him hawing by the trump butt lickers is just a bunch of halitosis filled hot air.
The only game is being plated by republicans. This trial has been a pathetic show by republicans. They have shown the nation how they willing to cover up the corruption of a president just as long as he's from their own party.Did 63 million voters vote to allow Trump to extort foreign governments in return for personal favors?The faggot is a "whistleblower" in the sense that "whistle" = "stiff c*ck"
Here's the message: You're not going to take down a sitting president and thwart the will of 63 million voters while hiding behind your blankie.
The message was well delivered by Rand Paul and hopefully the c*ckblower will continue to have uncontrolled, ill-timed bowel evacuations until it is locked up with its own kind for treason/sedition.
extortion is not one of the impeachment charges. If the House wasn't ready to impeach, they should have held off with their vote. We know they only wanted to extend the circus into the Senate proceedings. Good for the Republicans not allowing them to play their games.
They used the same rules that governed the Clinton trial, idiot.
He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.He’s going to be killed?? HuhAgain again, serves no other purpose than to try to get the whistleblower killed
Why else would Paul consider it necessary to reveal who he is?
Sends a message to future whistleblowers
Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.
.
the WB met every standard.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:
Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
It sure was. The WB himself admitted it. I don't know how it was checked since it was 90% wrong.
Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:
Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
Exactly. The IG checks it for credibility. Checks and balances. Therefore it wasn't based solely on unsubstantiated or second hand information. It was deemed credible enough to go forward.
Just admit that you'll say anything to further the narrative on this smear campaign.
More than 10 witnesses collaborated the whistleblowers story after the situation was investigated by the IG and deemed an urgent concern. So all this him hawing by the trump butt lickers is just a bunch of halitosis filled hot air.
How is speculation and assumptions confirming anything? Try that in a court of law and see what happens. The only one to confirm he talked to Trump directly was Sondland. And Sondland testified that Trump told him no quid pro quo; he wanted nothing from Zelensky.
He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.He’s going to be killed?? Huh
Why else would Paul consider it necessary to reveal who he is?
Sends a message to future whistleblowers
Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.
.
the WB met every standard.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:
Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
did you read the rest, ray ray & chose not to post it?
Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.
It sure was. The WB himself admitted it. I don't know how it was checked since it was 90% wrong.He does not meet the standard for a whistle blower.Why else would Paul consider it necessary to reveal who he is?
Sends a message to future whistleblowers
Accusers cannot hide behind their accusations.
.
the WB met every standard.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
Thanks for the link. On the top of page 2:
Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
Exactly. The IG checks it for credibility. Checks and balances. Therefore it wasn't based solely on unsubstantiated or second hand information. It was deemed credible enough to go forward.
Just admit that you'll say anything to further the narrative on this smear campaign.
