Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, they made the complaint. The complaint has since been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

How many times are you going to repeat this lie...without ever offering any link or anything to prove what you are saying is more than the lie it is?

I poster the Whistle lower Law itself with a link.

The snowflake claim that the 'whistle Blower' qualifies as a 'whistle blower' is a LIE, perpetuated by snowflakes who have refused to even read the law, who prefer to continue to parrot instead what proven Ling Dems and fake news MSM tells them.

The LIE D-Adam Schiff (and snowflakes like DragonLady) professed, that the 'whistle Blower' is afforded the protections of ANONYMITY and IMMUNITY are completely proven to be nothing but a lie within the actual law.

The FACT that the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ reviewed the complaint and DISMISSED it based on the fact that NO CRIME had been proven to have been committed and there were NO WITNESSES has already been confirmed through multiple links that have been posted numerous times.

Snowflakes such as yourself continue to perpetuate the lie that claims to the contrary have been substantiated through testimony and / or documentation has been repeatedly DEBUNKED. The FACT is not one person who testified in Schiff's coup Impeachment circus substantiated any of the FALSE claims about the Whistle Blower HOAX.

- The non-qualifying WB is admittedly a Trump-hating, Democratic party-supporting, Biden-connected, Brennan-subordinate Deep State CIA agent who admitted they did not personally witness anything, that their complaint was based on hearsay.

- Again, no one who testified under oath is a 'witness' because NONE of them 'witnessed' anything. Even Sondland was forced to admit his BELIEFS were based on things he HEARD from other people, nothing he heard / witnessed himself.

- When directly asked under oath to state what crimes the President committed, what Impeachable offenses he committed, NOT ONE could name 1 crime, 1 Impeachable offense.

The complaint was NOT corroborated - you LIE!

There is a finite number of people who actually listened in on and participated in the actual phone call between the US President and the Ukraine PM, and not one of them have substantiated the false claims made by the Democrats. NOT ONE!

The President did not hesitate to release the transcripts of the phone call, and the entire case for Impeachment for the Democrats completely depends on the pathetic Bill-Clinton-esque tactic of twisting the meaning of 1 single word. For Bill Clnton that word was 'SEX'. For the Democrats and their justification for Impeachment is THEIR INTERPRETTION of the word 'US'.

The Democrats broke laws, violated the Constitution, trampled citizens' rights, endangered our national security, became 'dangerous to our republic', manufactured evidence / altered official evidence / documents, engaged in Sedition, set a new speed record for rushing to Impeachment with the weakest case in US history - based on their partisan definition of the word 'US' in a phone call none of them witnessed / were part of.

Holy shit!

How many times are you going to repeat this lie...without ever offering any link or anything to prove what you are saying is more than the lie it is?

I don't have to lie or provide a link. I watched all of the testimony. I know it to be true.
You should have watched or read the transcripts yourself.

 

[easyt65]

The snowflake claim that the 'whistle Blower' qualifies as a 'whistle blower' is a LIE

No it isn't. Why would you lie about this?


What is a whistleblower?
A federal whistleblower is an employee who reports gross mismanagement, abuse of authority or other illegal or unethical activity to management, authorities or — in the case of the executive branch — to Congress, which has oversight capacity.

What are whistleblower protections?
Federal Legal protections for whistleblowers were enacted through the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. The law offers the whistleblower some protection from criminal prosecution and administrative retaliation, such as firing or demotion. Because of concerns about classified information, the protections initially did not include the intelligence community.

Congress established a process for intelligence workers to report misconduct through the 1998 Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. It wasn’t until 2014 that lawmakers codified a directive from President Barack Obama also extending protections against retaliation to intelligence officials. Despite these legal efforts, the law isn’t perfect. While non-intelligence civil servants can take retaliation cases to court, the intelligence community does not have this privilege due to concerns about classified material. This means intelligence whistleblowers could face punishment at work even if it’s illegal, possibly with limited legal recourse.

Did Trump’s whistleblower follow protocol?
Short answer: Yes. In recent weeks Trump and his supporters have accused the author of the complaint of being a “deep-state operative.” However, both the inspector general for the intelligence community and the acting director of national intelligence have said the individual followed legal procedure. Contrary to Trump’s claims, the law does not require a whistleblower to present first-hand information, it only requires a reasonable belief of a violation, said David Colapinto, co-founder and general counsel for the National Whistleblower Center, an advocacy group.

The protocol is for an intelligence official to file a complaint with the inspector general who is expected to refer the matter to the director of national intelligence. In this case, the inspector general alerted the House Intelligence Committee, even though the acting DNI consulted the Department of Justice first.

Will the whistleblower’s identity be kept a secret?
The president told reporters he is “trying to find out” the identity of the whistleblower. Ultimately, there’s nothing that can block Trump from revealing who he or she is, said Bradley Moss, a whistleblower attorney who specializes in national security. However, the law explicitly tasks the president with enforcing protections against retaliation.

“It is patently offensive and insulting to whistleblowers to have the president talking about how he is going to out this person, how he is going to confront this person,” Moss said. “No matter who is in the Oval Office … the need for whistleblowers to be able to raise their concerns with confidentiality and anonymity is critical.”

What is unique about the Trump whistleblower complaint?
This is the first time a credible whistleblower case has involved the president. Now, the president is publicly criticizing a person he is mandated by law to protect. Questions also remain about the executive privilege and the president’s ability to stymie ongoing investigations against him.

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

Silly rabbit, laws and rules don't apply to Democrats and snowflakes.....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

He's claiming executive privilege. If Congress doesn't contest that, then he's perfectly within his rights to refuse these subpoenas.

He's claiming executive privilege.

They have not claimed executive privilege. There is no such thing as a blanket privilege that covers all subpoenas anyway.

i believe he is.

So what.....you believe alot of stupid shit.

 

[easyt65]

I don't have to lie or provide a link.

Yeah, that's what I thought, lil' lying snowflake.

I did watch the testimony, and I downloaded and read the actual transcripts. I did not rely on Schiff's BS 'summaries' like you obviously did.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don't have to lie or provide a link.

Yeah, that's what I thought, lil' lying snowflake.

I did watch the testimony, and I downloaded and read the actual transcripts. I did not rely on Schiff's BS 'summaries' like you obviously did.

If you did watch, then you're either dumb or lying. I suspect some combination of both.

 

[Nostra]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

 

[easyt65]

If you did watch, then you're either dumb or lying. I suspect some combination of both.

So if I don't go along with your already debunked BS then I must be lying, huh, lil' lying snowflake? That's as stupid as Democrats declaring anyone who asserts their Constitutional Rights in their defense is definitely GUILTY.


You sound like Schiff and Maxine Waters: 'I know the President is guilty....I just don't have the evidence'

Bwuhahahahaha........

 

[Auld Phart]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

Leverage?

In the Senate?

I like the way this guy put it on a Yahoo message board.

"If she holds the articles up from being given to the Senate, McConnell should hold a vote to dismiss the Articles in abstentia, Telling the dem's that whenever they decide to send the Articles over the Senate may or may not consider them again"

 

[Nostra]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

How did she gain leverage by not sending it to the Senate? How did that "motivate" Mitch? Be specific.

 

[easyt65]

Snowflake logic is so hard to follow...its literally like a snowflake caught on at at the mercy of the wind.

 

[berg80]

Schumer Might Consider Court Battle Over Impeachment Witnesses That House Avoided
Schumer Might Consider Court Battle Over Impeachment Witnesses That House Avoided

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Thursday left the door open to waiting for courts to enforce subpoenas of witnesses for a Senate impeachment trial if need be.

His comments to reporters a day after the House took its historic vote to impeach President Donald Trump came as he is publicly feuding with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnnell (R-KY) over whether the Senate should to agree to call witnesses in the first place.

 

[berg80]

Snowflake logic is so hard to follow...its literally like a snowflake caught on at at the mercy of the wind.

Try taking off your tin foil hat, it might help you think more clearly.

 

[Mac-7]

Actually it's the Democrats who have disregarded their loyalty to the country for a Schiff Sham.
Y'all actually present a weak case for impeachment

How are they disregarding their loyalty to country?

By politicizing the law in order to steal an election they lost

Politicizing the law? Is that like launching investigations to harm political opponents?

Like the man said, libs who live by the sword die by the sword

Impeachment is political. Justice shouldn’t be.

Libs didnt respect justice to get us where we are

so its too late to worry about that now

 

[Nostra]

Schumer Might Consider Court Battle Over Impeachment Witnesses That House Avoided
Schumer Might Consider Court Battle Over Impeachment Witnesses That House Avoided

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Thursday left the door open to waiting for courts to enforce subpoenas of witnesses for a Senate impeachment trial if need be.

His comments to reporters a day after the House took its historic vote to impeach President Donald Trump came as he is publicly feuding with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnnell (R-KY) over whether the Senate should to agree to call witnesses in the first place.

Mitch can ignore and move forward, just like Schifferbrains did when Trump challenged his subpoenas in court.

Karma is a bitch, huh?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, they made the complaint. The complaint has since been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

How many times are you going to repeat this lie...without ever offering any link or anything to prove what you are saying is more than the lie it is?

I poster the Whistle lower Law itself with a link.

The snowflake claim that the 'whistle Blower' qualifies as a 'whistle blower' is a LIE, perpetuated by snowflakes who have refused to even read the law, who prefer to continue to parrot instead what proven Ling Dems and fake news MSM tells them.

The LIE D-Adam Schiff (and snowflakes like DragonLady) professed, that the 'whistle Blower' is afforded the protections of ANONYMITY and IMMUNITY are completely proven to be nothing but a lie within the actual law.

The FACT that the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ reviewed the complaint and DISMISSED it based on the fact that NO CRIME had been proven to have been committed and there were NO WITNESSES has already been confirmed through multiple links that have been posted numerous times.

Snowflakes such as yourself continue to perpetuate the lie that claims to the contrary have been substantiated through testimony and / or documentation has been repeatedly DEBUNKED. The FACT is not one person who testified in Schiff's coup Impeachment circus substantiated any of the FALSE claims about the Whistle Blower HOAX.

- The non-qualifying WB is admittedly a Trump-hating, Democratic party-supporting, Biden-connected, Brennan-subordinate Deep State CIA agent who admitted they did not personally witness anything, that their complaint was based on hearsay.

- Again, no one who testified under oath is a 'witness' because NONE of them 'witnessed' anything. Even Sondland was forced to admit his BELIEFS were based on things he HEARD from other people, nothing he heard / witnessed himself.

- When directly asked under oath to state what crimes the President committed, what Impeachable offenses he committed, NOT ONE could name 1 crime, 1 Impeachable offense.

The complaint was NOT corroborated - you LIE!

There is a finite number of people who actually listened in on and participated in the actual phone call between the US President and the Ukraine PM, and not one of them have substantiated the false claims made by the Democrats. NOT ONE!

The President did not hesitate to release the transcripts of the phone call, and the entire case for Impeachment for the Democrats completely depends on the pathetic Bill-Clinton-esque tactic of twisting the meaning of 1 single word. For Bill Clnton that word was 'SEX'. For the Democrats and their justification for Impeachment is THEIR INTERPRETTION of the word 'US'.

The Democrats broke laws, violated the Constitution, trampled citizens' rights, endangered our national security, became 'dangerous to our republic', manufactured evidence / altered official evidence / documents, engaged in Sedition, set a new speed record for rushing to Impeachment with the weakest case in US history - based on their partisan definition of the word 'US' in a phone call none of them witnessed / were part of.

Holy shit!

How many times are you going to repeat this lie...without ever offering any link or anything to prove what you are saying is more than the lie it is?

I don't have to lie or provide a link. I watched all of the testimony. I know it to be true.
You should have watched or read the transcripts yourself.

How do you know it to be true? Furthermore, it was all hearsay. In other words, not admissible.

 

[bripat9643]

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

He's claiming executive privilege. If Congress doesn't contest that, then he's perfectly within his rights to refuse these subpoenas.

He's claiming executive privilege.

They have not claimed executive privilege. There is no such thing as a blanket privilege that covers all subpoenas anyway.

i believe he is.

So what.....you believe alot of stupid shit.

True, Apparently I believe you are capable of posting a rational argument.

 

[bripat9643]

Schumer Might Consider Court Battle Over Impeachment Witnesses That House Avoided
Schumer Might Consider Court Battle Over Impeachment Witnesses That House Avoided

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Thursday left the door open to waiting for courts to enforce subpoenas of witnesses for a Senate impeachment trial if need be.

His comments to reporters a day after the House took its historic vote to impeach President Donald Trump came as he is publicly feuding with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnnell (R-KY) over whether the Senate should to agree to call witnesses in the first place.

<YAWN!>

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

What has that to do with Pelosi claiming leverage over the Senate?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

I suspect Schumer's crawled to McConnell in the hopes of getting something he wants. Chances are slim.