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.
NO, it (ie. the thread) is NOT about the transcript. It is about the question asked in the title >>I answered a poster. The transcript was what this all was about. Shut up
That's right. She has everything to lose by handing them over. Everything to gain by not doing that (and now starting another House railroading)Not until peloser hands them to the senate. Why do you not believe your sides scholar’s word? Facts suck for you. Peloser will never hand them over. Ever
That goes for YOU TOO, Faun.NO, it (ie. the thread) is NOT about the transcript. It is about the question asked in the title >>
Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?
Post to that (the topic), or get out of the thread.
Why was it relevant for the us? What happened afterwards? Who got prosecuted?Oh fk off. Tell me what the prosecutor was working on? He said Berisma.But they did NOT, because of the Biden threat. And Trump only knew it from the video.uh-huh...ukraine had met all its anti corruption benchmarks in order to have that aid released to them in 2017 & 2018 & donny knew that they did.
Some people have to be told twice.
Now getting back ON TOPIC, will this farce ever get to the Senate, Yes or No ?
that's bullshit. there was no threat & the fact was - biden was part of an anti corruption team within our government & other nations in a wide partnership in overseeing ukraine purge their corrupted people.
you failed.
Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
Courtney Subramanian
USA TODAY
It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.
Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.
Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.
"Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."
What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor
NO, it (ie. the thread) is NOT about the transcript. It is about the question asked in the title >>I answered a poster. The transcript was what this all was about. Shut up
Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?
Post to that (the topic), or get out of the thread.
And I said she wouldn’t because there’s no crime in it. Abuse of power isn’t a crime and obstruction of Congress isn’t correct. It’s what I wrote. Now the reason we got to the transcript is that’s what the entire impeachment was about! What the fk is wrong with you?NO, it (ie. the thread) is NOT about the transcript. It is about the question asked in the title >>I answered a poster. The transcript was what this all was about. Shut up
Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?
Post to that (the topic), or get out of the thread.
And that has what to do with the impeachment articles being given to the senate?Why was it relevant for the us? What happened afterwards? Who got prosecuted?Oh fk off. Tell me what the prosecutor was working on? He said Berisma.But they did NOT, because of the Biden threat. And Trump only knew it from the video.
Some people have to be told twice.
Now getting back ON TOPIC, will this farce ever get to the Senate, Yes or No ?
that's bullshit. there was no threat & the fact was - biden was part of an anti corruption team within our government & other nations in a wide partnership in overseeing ukraine purge their corrupted people.
you failed.
Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
Courtney Subramanian
USA TODAY
It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.
Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.
Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.
"Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."
What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor
ukraine is the largest land mass nation on earth & is relevant because putin wants it back in the fold along with the other countries that split off after the USSR dissolved. you think that if the USSR regained it's power that would be good for us? for europe?
With both Democrats and Republicans demanding documents and witnesses the other side refuses, it is impossible to consider the issue of whether the articles will be sent to the Senate without considering all this issues that will impact the decision.For those who might still be confused - please get back on topic. Topic is quite specific - will impeachment articles be sent to Senate. Not about Ukraine or transcripts or anything else.
I will. A Constitutional professor that Democrats called as a witness said it. Dumb ass.There is no impeachment until the Senate receives the articles.
lol... you keep going with that.
Nothing. Now let's talk about just about every other poster in this thread .And I said she wouldn’t because there’s no crime in it. Abuse of power isn’t a crime and obstruction of Congress isn’t correct. It’s what I wrote. Now the reason we got to the transcript is that’s what the entire impeachment was about! What the fk is wrong with you?NO, it (ie. the thread) is NOT about the transcript. It is about the question asked in the title >>I answered a poster. The transcript was what this all was about. Shut up
Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?
Post to that (the topic), or get out of the thread.
It is easily possible. The whole stupid thing is avfarceWith both Democrats and Republicans demanding documents and witnesses the other side refuses, it is impossible to consider the issue of whether the articles will be sent to the Senate without considering all this issues that will impact the decision.For those who might still be confused - please get back on topic. Topic is quite specific - will impeachment articles be sent to Senate. Not about Ukraine or transcripts or anything else.
It is easily possible. The matter is who profits and who loses.With both Democrats and Republicans demanding documents and witnesses the other side refuses, it is impossible to consider the issue of whether the articles will be sent to the Senate without considering all this issues that will impact the decision.For those who might still be confused - please get back on topic. Topic is quite specific - will impeachment articles be sent to Senate. Not about Ukraine or transcripts or anything else.
So why couldn't he be called to a closed door session and compelled to reveal who divulged the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader? I mean, the House democrats certainly had no problem with closed door testimony. The Senate could do the same. Of course, they would have to get the articles first, which is an unknown as Pelosi is playing political games with them.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?Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask: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.
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.
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.
Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:
ICPWA also includes a provision protecting the whistleblower’s identity from disclosure, a protection also found in the Inspector General Act of 1978. However, aside from that provision, ICPWA does not offer whistleblowers protections from retaliation and does not provide mechanisms for challenging retaliation.
- A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law orExecutive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
- A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
- An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.
In response to this weakness, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included the first general provisions for protecting intelligence community whistleblowers, encouraging lawful disclosures to the OIGIC. However, the majority of its provisions are general and subject to multiple interpretations.
The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center
EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS '• ' SEC. 7
(b) The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf
Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints
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.
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're welcome.
well actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It wasn't passed by the new congress, and as such dissolves.Nancy has no clue what to do, either way the GOP wins.
1. If she sends the articles to the senate they acquit Trump, and the democrats look like partisan hacks
2. If she doesn't send the articles, Trump is not impeached, and the senate can make a rule that they are void if not forwarded within 48 hours, as an example. Then the next GOP House can repeal the Articles so they are voided.
What can Nancy do? She pulled the pin and now has no clue how to get rid of the grenade, she looks like the incompetent fool she is.
well actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.Nancy has no clue what to do, either way the GOP wins.
1. If she sends the articles to the senate they acquit Trump, and the democrats look like partisan hacks
2. If she doesn't send the articles, Trump is not impeached, and the senate can make a rule that they are void if not forwarded within 48 hours, as an example. Then the next GOP House can repeal the Articles so they are voided.
What can Nancy do? She pulled the pin and now has no clue how to get rid of the grenade, she looks like the incompetent fool she is.
Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senatewell actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.Nancy has no clue what to do, either way the GOP wins.
1. If she sends the articles to the senate they acquit Trump, and the democrats look like partisan hacks
2. If she doesn't send the articles, Trump is not impeached, and the senate can make a rule that they are void if not forwarded within 48 hours, as an example. Then the next GOP House can repeal the Articles so they are voided.
What can Nancy do? She pulled the pin and now has no clue how to get rid of the grenade, she looks like the incompetent fool she is.
OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment
Those are two different subjects. Dershowitz covers both.well actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.Nancy has no clue what to do, either way the GOP wins.
1. If she sends the articles to the senate they acquit Trump, and the democrats look like partisan hacks
2. If she doesn't send the articles, Trump is not impeached, and the senate can make a rule that they are void if not forwarded within 48 hours, as an example. Then the next GOP House can repeal the Articles so they are voided.
What can Nancy do? She pulled the pin and now has no clue how to get rid of the grenade, she looks like the incompetent fool she is.
OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment
^^^ another idiot.Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senatewell actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.Nancy has no clue what to do, either way the GOP wins.
1. If she sends the articles to the senate they acquit Trump, and the democrats look like partisan hacks
2. If she doesn't send the articles, Trump is not impeached, and the senate can make a rule that they are void if not forwarded within 48 hours, as an example. Then the next GOP House can repeal the Articles so they are voided.
What can Nancy do? She pulled the pin and now has no clue how to get rid of the grenade, she looks like the incompetent fool she is.
OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment
