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.
The House has now impeached a President on no evidence of a crime and purely for political purposes. They have now set the precedent for every President to be impeached whenever the opposition has control of the House.Trump did it. You know it. The House did it's job according to the Constitution.Give me a break. Democrats have been using the Constitution as a doormat and making up rules as they go along. They have morphed Impeachment into a weapon to unseat the rival party President. Are you proud of them John"Law"?Trump once again violated the law. Because Trumpers think Trump is above the law or that the law does not apply to Trump they laugh. It is a sorry state of affairs. Pelosi's strategy is right. Hang tight to the Impeachment articles because more are sure to follow. Trump can't help but to trample on the law.
Patriots do no use ideological hatred and fourth hand information to scam a President.Or maybe a patriot.Trump outed a Democrat Spy
Say someone tweets US secrets as to our military installations & I forward it to the Russians.....Trump once again violated the law. Because Trumpers think Trump is above the law or that the law does not apply to Trump they laugh. It is a sorry state of affairs. Pelosi's strategy is right. Hang tight to the Impeachment articles because more are sure to follow. Trump can't help but to trample on the law.
It's not illegal to retweet an article. Are you really that stupid?
.
As I understand it, everything the WB did was by the book and corroborated by the testimony of others. What should the WB have done if he thought there was a possible abuse of presidential power?Patriots do no use ideological hatred and fourth hand information to scam a President.Or maybe a patriot.Trump outed a Democrat Spy
For those that need reminding here is the Presidential oath of office:
The Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
POTUS is to execute the laws of the land. Trump is failing in his duties as he has an obligation to protect the whistleblower.
Trumpers do not care because they consider execution of the laws a farce. Just like the rule of law is a farce to most Trumpers.
Trump knows that each time he tweets the name of the whistleblower he is putting his life in jeopardy. Spare me the idiocy that Trump “retweeted” the name. If it comes for the Orange menace’s twitter account it is from him.
As I understand it, everything the WB did was by the book and corroborated by the testimony of others. What should the WB have done if he thought there was a possible abuse of presidential power?Patriots do no use ideological hatred and fourth hand information to scam a President.Or maybe a patriot.Trump outed a Democrat Spy
The problem is, it was not corroborated by others. Others offered their opinions, not evidence. In fact, the only hard and tangible evidence that exists debunks the WB.As I understand it, everything the WB did was by the book and corroborated by the testimony of others. What should the WB have done if he thought there was a possible abuse of presidential power?Patriots do no use ideological hatred and fourth hand information to scam a President.Or maybe a patriot.Trump outed a Democrat Spy
Not really. The WB was an intel guy and was indirectly involved. He, rightly, took his concerns to the IG. It was the IG who made the determination to push the concern up the chain. If you have a problem it is with the IG not the WB.Sorry child, you were lied to, see post 165.As I understand it, everything the WB did was by the book and corroborated by the testimony of others. What should the WB have done if he thought there was a possible abuse of presidential power?
Not really. The WB was an intel guy and was indirectly involved. He, rightly, took his concerns to the IG. It was the IG who made the determination to push the concern up the chain. If you have a problem it is with the IG not the WB.Sorry child, you were lied to, see post 165.As I understand it, everything the WB did was by the book and corroborated by the testimony of others. What should the WB have done if he thought there was a possible abuse of presidential power?
You are wrong about the retweets to I think. If someone publishes classified information and you have the clearances to know it's accuracy, it is still a violation of the law for you to respond to say it is either true or false.
I don't know who the leaker and I doubt you know either. Still sounds to me like everyone in the chain was doing their job, following the chain of command, and every link seemed to agree the issue was a concern.Wrong again, the guy had been thrown out of the WH in 2017 for leaking. He had no involvement, indirect or otherwise. In fact the folks that talked to him most likely violated the espionage act by talking to him about a classified phone call, because he had no need to know. The book was thrown out by the ICIG and he should be fired for his actions. Why do you think the DNI took the complaint to the DOJ to determine if it met the qualifications for "urgent concern", which it didn't.You are wrong about the retweets to I think. If someone publishes classified information and you have the clearances to know it's accuracy, it is still a violation of the law for you to respond to say it is either true or false.
You must have missed what the IG said about your Republican allegations.....?For those that need reminding here is the Presidential oath of office:
The Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
POTUS is to execute the laws of the land. Trump is failing in his duties as he has an obligation to protect the whistleblower.
Trumpers do not care because they consider execution of the laws a farce. Just like the rule of law is a farce to most Trumpers.
Trump knows that each time he tweets the name of the whistleblower he is putting his life in jeopardy. Spare me the idiocy that Trump “retweeted” the name. If it comes for the Orange menace’s twitter account it is from him.
If you ever bothered to research the qualifications for an ICIG wistleblower complaint, who ever this so called wistleblower is, he was never qualified. By the ICIG guidance the topic had to be within the DNIs direct responsibility and authority. The DNI is NOT responsible for, nor does he have the authority over presidential diplomatic phone calls.
Put very simply, so even you might understand. The ICIG had no authority to even entertain, much less act on the fraudulent complaint. On top of that, the guys name has been public for several months, retweeting an article containing his name is not illegal. So give up your partisan hackery and try living in the real world for a change. Raunchey Madcow is lying to ya.
.
The R's are lying to ya on FOX!
You must have missed what the IG said about your Republican allegations.....?For those that need reminding here is the Presidential oath of office:
The Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
POTUS is to execute the laws of the land. Trump is failing in his duties as he has an obligation to protect the whistleblower.
Trumpers do not care because they consider execution of the laws a farce. Just like the rule of law is a farce to most Trumpers.
Trump knows that each time he tweets the name of the whistleblower he is putting his life in jeopardy. Spare me the idiocy that Trump “retweeted” the name. If it comes for the Orange menace’s twitter account it is from him.
If you ever bothered to research the qualifications for an ICIG wistleblower complaint, who ever this so called wistleblower is, he was never qualified. By the ICIG guidance the topic had to be within the DNIs direct responsibility and authority. The DNI is NOT responsible for, nor does he have the authority over presidential diplomatic phone calls.
Put very simply, so even you might understand. The ICIG had no authority to even entertain, much less act on the fraudulent complaint. On top of that, the guys name has been public for several months, retweeting an article containing his name is not illegal. So give up your partisan hackery and try living in the real world for a change. Raunchey Madcow is lying to ya.
.
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
here are some key points from the 4 page IG memorandum:
-The WB was a credible valid WB under US Code, and met ALL requirements.
-The form he used WAS the proper form and in place since May of 2018
-The ''urgent status''/''instant WB status'' met all requirements under US Code
-The WB reported both first hand and second hand information
-The IG confirmed 2nd hand info in the complaint, by interviewing first hand witnesses and reviewing first hand documents
Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints(September 30, 2019) The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) processes complaints or information with respect to alleged urgent concerns in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) and the ICIG’s authorizing statute. With respect to the whistleblower complaint received by the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG processed and reviewed the complaint in accordance with the law.
The law required that the Complainant be “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.” 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). The ICIG confirmed the Complainant was such an employee, detailee, or contractor.
The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respect to an “urgent concern,” which is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the 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.”Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant alleged information with respect to such an alleged urgent concern.
In addition, the law required the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community within 14 calendar days to determine whether information with respect to the urgent concern “appeared credible.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(B). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined, after conducting a preliminary review, that there were reasonable grounds to believe the urgent concern appeared credible.
At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the following language:
The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. 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.
- In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.) 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.
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. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations.
The Complainant followed the law in filing the urgent concern complaint, and the ICIG followed the law in transmitting the information to the Acting Director of National Intelligence on August 26, 2019.
In 2018, the ICIG formed a new Center for Protected Disclosures, which has as one of its primary functions to process complaints from whistleblowers under the ICWPA. In early 2019, the ICIG hired a new Hotline Program Manager as part of the Center for Protected Disclosures to oversee the ICIG’s Hotline. In June 2019, the newly hired Director for the Center for Protected Disclosures entered on duty. Thus, the Center for Protected Disclosures has been reviewing the forms provided to whistleblowers who wish to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees. In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.
The ICIG’s Center for Protected Disclosures has developed three new forms entitled, “Report of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse UNCLASSIFIED Intake Form”; “Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form-UNCLASSIFIED”; and “External Review Panel (ERP) Request Form –UNCLASSIFIED.” These three new forms are now available on the ICIG’s open website and are in the process of being added to the ICIG’s classified system. The ICIG will continue to update and clarify its forms and its websites to ensure its guidance to whistleblowers is clear and strictly complies with statutory requirements. Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern.
In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower’s filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress’s intent, and the whistleblower’s intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.
Here's a hint for ya commie, the short answer is, NEVER. The president is his boss.within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence
I have a problem with the generality of the articles. No factual crimes...Just how did he obstruct justice. Name the crimeTrump did it. You know it. The House did it's job according to the Constitution.Give me a break. Democrats have been using the Constitution as a doormat and making up rules as they go along. They have morphed Impeachment into a weapon to unseat the rival party President. Are you proud of them John"Law"?Trump once again violated the law. Because Trumpers think Trump is above the law or that the law does not apply to Trump they laugh. It is a sorry state of affairs. Pelosi's strategy is right. Hang tight to the Impeachment articles because more are sure to follow. Trump can't help but to trample on the law.
I have a problem with the generality of the articles. No factual crimes...Just how did he obstruct justice. Name the crimeTrump did it. You know it. The House did it's job according to the Constitution.Give me a break. Democrats have been using the Constitution as a doormat and making up rules as they go along. They have morphed Impeachment into a weapon to unseat the rival party President. Are you proud of them John"Law"?Trump once again violated the law. Because Trumpers think Trump is above the law or that the law does not apply to Trump they laugh. It is a sorry state of affairs. Pelosi's strategy is right. Hang tight to the Impeachment articles because more are sure to follow. Trump can't help but to trample on the law.
"Bribery, Treason and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" Bribery is a Crime. Treason is a Crime.. Obstruction of Justice is a general category which would include Bribery or Treason. What crime are you talking about in the Category of High Crimes and Misdemeanors that Trump is guilty of?I have a problem with the generality of the articles. No factual crimes...Just how did he obstruct justice. Name the crimeTrump did it. You know it. The House did it's job according to the Constitution.Give me a break. Democrats have been using the Constitution as a doormat and making up rules as they go along. They have morphed Impeachment into a weapon to unseat the rival party President. Are you proud of them John"Law"?Trump once again violated the law. Because Trumpers think Trump is above the law or that the law does not apply to Trump they laugh. It is a sorry state of affairs. Pelosi's strategy is right. Hang tight to the Impeachment articles because more are sure to follow. Trump can't help but to trample on the law.
Evidence was provided through testimony.
I have a problem with the generality of the articles. No factual crimes...Just how did he obstruct justice. Name the crimeTrump did it. You know it. The House did it's job according to the Constitution.Give me a break. Democrats have been using the Constitution as a doormat and making up rules as they go along. They have morphed Impeachment into a weapon to unseat the rival party President. Are you proud of them John"Law"?Trump once again violated the law. Because Trumpers think Trump is above the law or that the law does not apply to Trump they laugh. It is a sorry state of affairs. Pelosi's strategy is right. Hang tight to the Impeachment articles because more are sure to follow. Trump can't help but to trample on the law.
Evidence of what crime?I have a problem with the generality of the articles. No factual crimes...Just how did he obstruct justice. Name the crimeTrump did it. You know it. The House did it's job according to the Constitution.Give me a break. Democrats have been using the Constitution as a doormat and making up rules as they go along. They have morphed Impeachment into a weapon to unseat the rival party President. Are you proud of them John"Law"?Trump once again violated the law. Because Trumpers think Trump is above the law or that the law does not apply to Trump they laugh. It is a sorry state of affairs. Pelosi's strategy is right. Hang tight to the Impeachment articles because more are sure to follow. Trump can't help but to trample on the law.
Evidence was provided through testimony.
Thank you Prince. Yes, It is obstructed Congress. So there is no crime because he said he would seek the Judicial remedy rather than the legislative order, which is legitimate, right?I have a problem with the generality of the articles. No factual crimes...Just how did he obstruct justice. Name the crimeTrump did it. You know it. The House did it's job according to the Constitution.Give me a break. Democrats have been using the Constitution as a doormat and making up rules as they go along. They have morphed Impeachment into a weapon to unseat the rival party President. Are you proud of them John"Law"?Trump once again violated the law. Because Trumpers think Trump is above the law or that the law does not apply to Trump they laugh. It is a sorry state of affairs. Pelosi's strategy is right. Hang tight to the Impeachment articles because more are sure to follow. Trump can't help but to trample on the law.
According to the articles of impeachment, Trump didn't obstruct justice, he obstructed Congress.
And the "evidence" that is offered for this phony "crime" is the fact that President Trump challenged the Pencil Necked Geek's subpoenas in court, instead of immediately genuflecting before the congress creep.
BTW, yes he did it.
But, no it isn't a crime, and all of our living ex-presidents did the same thing.
Using federal funds for private gain through bribing a foreign official.Evidence of what crime?I have a problem with the generality of the articles. No factual crimes...Just how did he obstruct justice. Name the crimeTrump did it. You know it. The House did it's job according to the Constitution.Give me a break. Democrats have been using the Constitution as a doormat and making up rules as they go along. They have morphed Impeachment into a weapon to unseat the rival party President. Are you proud of them John"Law"?Trump once again violated the law. Because Trumpers think Trump is above the law or that the law does not apply to Trump they laugh. It is a sorry state of affairs. Pelosi's strategy is right. Hang tight to the Impeachment articles because more are sure to follow. Trump can't help but to trample on the law.
Evidence was provided through testimony.
Every crime needs a victim. Who is the victim that would testify on behalf if the impeachment managers?Using federal funds for private gain through bribing a foreign official.Evidence of what crime?I have a problem with the generality of the articles. No factual crimes...Just how did he obstruct justice. Name the crimeTrump did it. You know it. The House did it's job according to the Constitution.Give me a break. Democrats have been using the Constitution as a doormat and making up rules as they go along. They have morphed Impeachment into a weapon to unseat the rival party President. Are you proud of them John"Law"?
Evidence was provided through testimony.
