Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[playtime]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

auCONtraire - they were talking about holding a trial without the articles.... that didn't last long, though, because apparently it can't be done. you think turtleboy wouldn't have done it if he could?

They can still vote the thing out of existence immediately upon arrival, and there's nothing she can do about it.

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

 

[Faun]

Mueller failed? How so? His job was to get to the truth -- are you saying he didn't get to the truth?

Meuller found the truth.............NO COLLUSION.

Sux to be you..............and that Madcow dude.

LOLOL

You poor rightard. Bless your heart. Who knows why you think that sucks for me. I always said I expected Mueller would get to the truth and that I would accept his findings no matter what he found.

And I did.

I was interested in truth and justice, not stringing Impeached Trump up for something he didn't do.

EARTH To FAUN:. the "findings" weren't his. You still don't know ?

Pheeeew !! (high-pitched whistle)

And they were not "findings". They were concoctions.

LOLOL

His finding that Impeached Trump did not collude or conspire with Russia is a concoction??

Who knew. Sounds like you think Impeached Trump colluded with Russia.

actually, mueller didn't state there was no conspiracy, but rather he couldn't definitely determine that whether it happened or because of 'insufficient' evidence. that is differant than saying there wasn't any. the reason being that evidence was destroyed & people took the fifth (which means questioning ends).

Mueller says messaging apps likely destroyed Trump-Russia evidence
Tech challenges prevented special counsel from establishing full picture of what happened
Mueller says messaging apps likely destroyed Trump-Russia evidence

On a number of important questions, Mueller never got answers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...t-questions-robert-mueller-never-got-answers/

not to mention donny was a coward & only gave written answers - most of which (despite claiming to have the most remarkable memory a human ever had ) he answered with 'i don't recall'.

Mueller said the evidence exonerated Impeached Trump on collusion/conspiracy. That's good enough for me.

 

[hadit]

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

auCONtraire - they were talking about holding a trial without the articles.... that didn't last long, though, because apparently it can't be done. you think turtleboy wouldn't have done it if he could?

They can still vote the thing out of existence immediately upon arrival, and there's nothing she can do about it.

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

 

[playtime]

Meuller found the truth.............NO COLLUSION.

Sux to be you..............and that Madcow dude.

LOLOL

You poor rightard. Bless your heart. Who knows why you think that sucks for me. I always said I expected Mueller would get to the truth and that I would accept his findings no matter what he found.

And I did.

I was interested in truth and justice, not stringing Impeached Trump up for something he didn't do.

EARTH To FAUN:. the "findings" weren't his. You still don't know ?

Pheeeew !! (high-pitched whistle)

And they were not "findings". They were concoctions.

LOLOL

His finding that Impeached Trump did not collude or conspire with Russia is a concoction??

Who knew. Sounds like you think Impeached Trump colluded with Russia.

actually, mueller didn't state there was no conspiracy, but rather he couldn't definitely determine that whether it happened or because of 'insufficient' evidence. that is differant than saying there wasn't any. the reason being that evidence was destroyed & people took the fifth (which means questioning ends).

Mueller says messaging apps likely destroyed Trump-Russia evidence
Tech challenges prevented special counsel from establishing full picture of what happened
Mueller says messaging apps likely destroyed Trump-Russia evidence

On a number of important questions, Mueller never got answers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...t-questions-robert-mueller-never-got-answers/

not to mention donny was a coward & only gave written answers - most of which (despite claiming to have the most remarkable memory a human ever had ) he answered with 'i don't recall'.

Mueller said the evidence exonerated Impeached Trump on collusion/conspiracy. That's good enough for me.

oh it's a done deal, unless something indisputable comes to light. yes, it's true that he had to exonerate based on what he had to work with.

 

[playtime]

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

auCONtraire - they were talking about holding a trial without the articles.... that didn't last long, though, because apparently it can't be done. you think turtleboy wouldn't have done it if he could?

They can still vote the thing out of existence immediately upon arrival, and there's nothing she can do about it.

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take & bring that kangaroo court to session.

 

[hadit]

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

auCONtraire - they were talking about holding a trial without the articles.... that didn't last long, though, because apparently it can't be done. you think turtleboy wouldn't have done it if he could?

They can still vote the thing out of existence immediately upon arrival, and there's nothing she can do about it.

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

 

[Faun]

auCONtraire - they were talking about holding a trial without the articles.... that didn't last long, though, because apparently it can't be done. you think turtleboy wouldn't have done it if he could?

They can still vote the thing out of existence immediately upon arrival, and there's nothing she can do about it.

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

Impeached Trump's language demands this whistleblower's identity remain secret. Impeached Trump called the whistleblower a spy and pointed out we execute spies. Should the whistleblower's identity be revealed, their life will now be at risk because we have an unhinged president who says things he shouldn't.

 

[joaquinmiller]

auCONtraire - they were talking about holding a trial without the articles.... that didn't last long, though, because apparently it can't be done. you think turtleboy wouldn't have done it if he could?

They can still vote the thing out of existence immediately upon arrival, and there's nothing she can do about it.

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

 

[protectionist]

Who was the last (R) you voted for?

it means that i am not a partisan stooge.

View attachment 297181 View attachment 297182 View attachment 297183 View attachment 297181


OH THAT IS RIPE! It takes guts to be that openly delusional in front of 40,000 people with a straight face. Do you practice before a mirror?

lol... you know not of which you speak little basket dweller.

want some names? phil giordano... joe santopetro ... john rowland... jody rell - all republicans.

i voted for ralph nader in 2000 against gore & my own state senator.... just to name a few.

funny how they all turned out to become CONvicted criminals after being voted into office (except for governor rell )

go google the first one...lol..... & after you find out what they did, come back & tell me how many (D)s or green party candidates you voted for m'k? then we can compare.

I voted for Nader in 96, and in 2000. Voted for Trump (twice) in 2016. I saw the light.

 

[protectionist]

They can still vote the thing out of existence immediately upon arrival, and there's nothing she can do about it.

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

 

[Nostra]

They know that they do not have voted in the Senate Coolio it is an obvious political campaign stunt

it's not a campaign stunt, it is a maneuver to get the Senate to have an impartial trial with witnesses, and NOT a SHAM trial as Moscow Mitch, proposed and guaranteed on FOX news....

and her plan is working... looks like they have the Alaskan Senator willing to vote with Dems on witnesses, just two more needed or maybe three more, to guarantee, witnesses and evidence, can be brought forward in the trial.

Opening that door just gives McConnell a free hand to call whom he wants to call.

McConnell can do anything he wants. Peloser has zip to do about it.

turtle boy needs to have at least 51 (R)s to vote on any given rule. he cannot do anything he wants.

Nazi Pelousy did in the House. In fact, she is currently violating House rules by sitting on impeachment.

 

[joaquinmiller]

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

 

[protectionist]

They can still vote the thing out of existence immediately upon arrival, and there's nothing she can do about it.

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

Impeached Trump's language demands this whistleblower's identity remain secret. Impeached Trump called the whistleblower a spy and pointed out we execute spies. Should the whistleblower's identity be revealed, their life will now be at risk because we have an unhinged president who says things he shouldn't.

The "whistleblower" life is at risk because the whistleblower put it at risk.

The president didn't say anything he shouldn't. He made an effort to stop corruption created by a treasonous president and a treasonous VP. For that, he is to be congratulated.

Thank you President Trump.

 

[jc456]

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used? seems odd that all you leftist fks in here have more information than the congress. interesting

 

[joaquinmiller]

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used?

It was. Under oath, Gomer! You're just providing more evidence (as if it were needed) that you're determined not to see it.

 

[Faun]

They know that they do not have voted in the Senate Coolio it is an obvious political campaign stunt

it's not a campaign stunt, it is a maneuver to get the Senate to have an impartial trial with witnesses, and NOT a SHAM trial as Moscow Mitch, proposed and guaranteed on FOX news....

and her plan is working... looks like they have the Alaskan Senator willing to vote with Dems on witnesses, just two more needed or maybe three more, to guarantee, witnesses and evidence, can be brought forward in the trial.

Opening that door just gives McConnell a free hand to call whom he wants to call.

McConnell can do anything he wants. Peloser has zip to do about it.

turtle boy needs to have at least 51 (R)s to vote on any given rule. he cannot do anything he wants.

Nazi Pelousy did in the House. In fact, she is currently violating House rules by sitting on impeachment.

Oh? Quote the House rule she's violating....

 

[jc456]

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used?

It was. Under oath, Gomer! You're just providing more evidence (as if it were needed) that you're determined not to see it.

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

 

[protectionist]

Abso Absolu

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

Absolutely I stick with it. Not a shred of evidence was presented to prove anything that these paid assassins had to say. It was all presumption, and what Trump did was good and proper, so who cares what these fools said ?

Which, as one of the committee Republicans said "means nothing"

Good job Mr President....of showing the American people what corrupt lowlifes the Bidens' are, and who Democrat idiots put this jerk up as a POTUS candidate.

PS - what you moronically call an "extortion attempt", is simply normal govt procedure that has been done hundreds of times, for years and decades.

 

[joaquinmiller]

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used?

It was. Under oath, Gomer! You're just providing more evidence (as if it were needed) that you're determined not to see it.

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

 

[jc456]

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used?

It was. Under oath, Gomer! You're just providing more evidence (as if it were needed) that you're determined not to see it.

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?