Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[Circe]

5. I read Gregg Jarrett's "Witch Hunt" it took a week, that is a thick book. It names all the players in the Operation Crossfire Hurricane coup plot. I hope Durham nails all the conspirators.

A week? Fast reader. It's a thick book, but you really understand this complex MEGO stuff (My Eyes Glaze Over) when you read it. Hopeless to try to get any comprehension from the news media these days. I would like to see prosecution of the Democtratic Campaign for hiring all these lies! At least them --- others as possible. Comey, of course. What a dreadful man. He ruined Hillary, she thinks, then he turned around and tried hard to ruin Trump --- I have thought for a long time that he just wanted to be prez himself. It was plausible: George H.W. Bush came from the CIA, after all. Comey was trying to destroy everyone in his path!

 

[basquebromance]

Pelosi will fold like a cheap hooker who got hit in the stomach by a fat guy with sores on his face.

 

[basquebromance]

hell is filled with folks like Pelosi, my friends!

 

[jc456]

it's a done deal. accept it.

Yep, she is batshit crazy..................and has yet to impeach Trump.

follow the bouncing ball m'k? ...

articles of impeachment are the charges.

trump has been charged.

the articles haven't gone to the courthouse aka the senate yet .

that doesn't mean donny hasn't been charged.

see how easy that was?

good.

now accept it, cause it's fini.

The Constitutional Expert on impeachment the Dimwingers in the House brought in to testify and educate them on impeachment says you are full of shit.

Jonathan Turley refutes Dem lawyer, says Trump was impeached despite withheld articles
Jonathan Turley refutes Dem lawyer, says Trump was impeached despite withheld articles

I testified against Trump’s impeachment. But let’s not pretend it didn’t happen.
Constitutional reality doesn’t rest on the House sending the articles over to the Senate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...chment-lets-not-pretend-that-it-didnt-happen/

I believe the Democrat lawyer.

That lawyer’s only right when he agrees with playbaby

 

[kyzr]

5. I read Gregg Jarrett's "Witch Hunt" it took a week, that is a thick book. It names all the players in the Operation Crossfire Hurricane coup plot. I hope Durham nails all the conspirators.

A week? Fast reader. It's a thick book, but you really understand this complex MEGO stuff (My Eyes Glaze Over) when you read it. Hopeless to try to get any comprehension from the news media these days. I would like to see prosecution of the Democratic Campaign for hiring all these lies! At least them --- others as possible. Comey, of course. What a dreadful man. He ruined Hillary, she thinks, then he turned around and tried hard to ruin Trump --- I have thought for a long time that he just wanted to be prez himself. It was plausible: George H.W. Bush came from the CIA, after all. Comey was trying to destroy everyone in his path!

I agree that Jarrett went into excruciating detail of every sub-plot in the book, and then repeated it. That said, the book was hard to put down. I like at the end he lists all the players and their roles. I would also have liked a "summary" of the coup plots as a quick reference to rebut posters here lying about the facts of the case.
Hillary ruined Hillary, Comey didn't do his job and pass the evidence to Lynch, as he should have. He either let her skate, or was ordered by Lynch to let her skate. Wonder what Bill Clinton promised her in the plane on the tarmac? Comey was also up to his neck in Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the biggest scandal in US history, illegally spying on the Trump campaign. So he's not thinking about being president, he's trying to stay out of prison.

James Comey - Wikipedia
He has an impressive resume'. Was almost appointed to the USSC, but was too moderate for the dems. He was appointed by Bush?! It doesn't say if he's a democrat or a Republican.

 

[playtime]

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.

Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:

1. 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;
2. 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
3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.

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.

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.

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.

because.... now understand this..................




the WB act specifically states that he/she stays anonymous unless he/she wants to come fwd or it impedes the investigation. he/she doesn't want to be known & how can you blame them since the (R) are out for blood & will protect donny at all costs? & whatever the WB stated to the ICIG, everything has been verified & investigations have not been impeded. & as for other 'closed' door testimony............ nobody that testified 'blew the whistle', so they didn't need to keep their identity secret from retaliation.

what? no thanx for the credible info nobody else got showing you that WB protocol gives the WB a lawful right not to be revealed?

And he would not be revealed in a closed door testimony. You know, the very thing that the House democrats were very fond of doing. It's a very valid question that thus far has been studiously ignored by the usual suspects, who divulged the contents of a private phone call between the president and a foreign leader, were they authorized to first have, second to disclose that information, was the WB authorized to receive that information and to whom did he pass it? Yet, we're not supposed to even wonder about that? Heck, since he's so heroic and all, grant him immunity and force him to spill. The American people and the president have the right to know who is doing this.

actually we do not have a right. that's why the WB act was enacted.

you don't know if there would be an outing of their identity. that's why the WB act was enacted.

the ICIG stated that everything the WB did followed protocol according to the WB act.

you wanna blame the person who blew the whistle on your president; & it has come to light that what your president did was impeachable.

too bad, so sad. the WB was able to do what he/she did because they are anonymous.

that's why the WB act was enacted. & the fact that donny is trying to out them --- to the public --- is putting that person in danger & you condone it.

AND you still didn't thank me for showing what you & he want really doesn't matter because being & staying anonymous is the law.

 

[playtime]

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.

Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:

1. 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;
2. 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
3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.

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.

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.

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.

because.... now understand this..................




the WB act specifically states that he/she stays anonymous unless he/she wants to come fwd or it impedes the investigation. he/she doesn't want to be known & how can you blame them since the (R) are out for blood & will protect donny at all costs? & whatever the WB stated to the ICIG, everything has been verified & investigations have not been impeded. & as for other 'closed' door testimony............ nobody that testified 'blew the whistle', so they didn't need to keep their identity secret from retaliation.

what? no thanx for the credible info nobody else got showing you that WB protocol gives the WB a lawful right not to be revealed?

Oh shut up

i know you hate true facts, but that is filed in the

too fucking bad file.

 

[playtime]

it's a done deal. accept it.

Yep, she is batshit crazy..................and has yet to impeach Trump.

follow the bouncing ball m'k? ...

articles of impeachment are the charges.

trump has been charged.

the articles haven't gone to the courthouse aka the senate yet .

that doesn't mean donny hasn't been charged.

see how easy that was?

good.

now accept it, cause it's fini.

The Constitutional Expert on impeachment the Dimwingers in the House brought in to testify and educate them on impeachment says you are full of shit.

Jonathan Turley refutes Dem lawyer, says Trump was impeached despite withheld articles
Jonathan Turley refutes Dem lawyer, says Trump was impeached despite withheld articles

I testified against Trump’s impeachment. But let’s not pretend it didn’t happen.
Constitutional reality doesn’t rest on the House sending the articles over to the Senate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...chment-lets-not-pretend-that-it-didnt-happen/

I believe the Democrat lawyer.

that doesn't matter. it's a done deal. too bad, so sad.

 

[hadit]

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.

Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:

1. 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;
2. 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
3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.

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.

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.

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.

because.... now understand this..................




the WB act specifically states that he/she stays anonymous unless he/she wants to come fwd or it impedes the investigation. he/she doesn't want to be known & how can you blame them since the (R) are out for blood & will protect donny at all costs? & whatever the WB stated to the ICIG, everything has been verified & investigations have not been impeded. & as for other 'closed' door testimony............ nobody that testified 'blew the whistle', so they didn't need to keep their identity secret from retaliation.

what? no thanx for the credible info nobody else got showing you that WB protocol gives the WB a lawful right not to be revealed?

And he would not be revealed in a closed door testimony. You know, the very thing that the House democrats were very fond of doing. It's a very valid question that thus far has been studiously ignored by the usual suspects, who divulged the contents of a private phone call between the president and a foreign leader, were they authorized to first have, second to disclose that information, was the WB authorized to receive that information and to whom did he pass it? Yet, we're not supposed to even wonder about that? Heck, since he's so heroic and all, grant him immunity and force him to spill. The American people and the president have the right to know who is doing this.

actually we do not have a right. that's why the WB act was enacted.

you don't know if there would be an outing of their identity. that's why the WB act was enacted.

the ICIG stated that everything the WB did followed protocol according to the WB act.

you wanna blame the person who blew the whistle on your president; & it has come to light that what your president did was impeachable.

too bad, so sad. the WB was able to do what he/she did because they are anonymous.

that's why the WB act was enacted. & the fact that donny is trying to out them --- to the public --- is putting that person in danger & you condone it.

AND you still didn't thank me for showing what you & he want really doesn't matter because being & staying anonymous is the law.

I gave you credit for it in this thread. Did you miss that? And now you're getting into interesting areas. Why do you think a WB would have cause to believe Congressional democrats would fail to protect his identity in closed door testimony? If you can answer that, perhaps you'll understand why Trump refuses to give democrats everything they demand. And yes, we should know who decided they were authorized to divulge the contents of a private phone call between the president and a foreign leader. I'm amazed that you wouldn't care to know that.

 

[protectionist]

[

1. Acquitted is acquitted is acquitted is acquitted. When Nancy send the Articles to the Senate, they will be dismissed without a circus.
2. No Republican will vote against Mitch, unless they want to find a new job
3. Justice Roberts can be overruled by a simple majority of senators, see #2
4. See #1, please note that no "hearsay evidence" is allowed in the senate
5. We'll see who wins in November after Barr and Durham expose the worst scandal in US history, Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the Obama admin's illegal spying on the Trump campaign.
6. Nancy gave the GOP the House when 31 dems are in Trump districts, and their shitty candidates will give Trump the presidency

1. Wouldn't it be fun if Pelosi DIDN'T send the articles and the Senate simply dismisses them for that reason? I can hope.
2. I wait till the votes are counted. Remember all those Dems voting "present." Like Obama used to do, the cowards.
3. Don't know the relevance.
4. If they don't allow hearsay evidence with this bowl of spaghetti of a "case," they don't have any evidence!
5. Yeah, this book I'm reading on the situation by Gregg Jarrett wants a trial of the Dems involved (especially the Democratic Party campaign people, who paid for it! But I don't think that will happen. These scandals cooked up to bring someone down: like the Victoria Plame thing, as soon as it fails, it's forgotten.
6. You may be right about the House. We can hope. They didn't do themselves any favors with all this.

3. The relevance is that Roberts' rulings can be overturned by a majority vote of the senators, like if Mitch is unhappy with a ruling.
5. I read Gregg Jarrett's "Witch Hunt" it took a week, that is a thick book. It names all the players in the Operation Crossfire Hurricane coup plot. I hope Durham nails all the conspirators.

Gregg Jarrett might be the most important author in America right now. His previous book, about the Russian collusion hoax was a humdinger too.

Jarrett is a one man wrecking crew for all the Democrat scams, hoaxes, snow jobs.

 

[protectionist]

So you agree with me that Pelosi will NOT send the articles to the Senate, right ?

No, I don't agree with you.

So you think she will send them to the Senate, walk headfirst into a Republican optics victory ?

You realize this whole thing is nothing but an optics war, right ? And the articles going to the Senate, constitutes a Republican victory, and a Democrat defeat, right ?

I already said I expect she will send them to the Senate. Are you hard of reading?

You either

1. don't have the foggiest idea of what is going on here

2. or you must think Pelosi is awfully stupid.

I'm not the one needing sympathy here. You are.

 

[protectionist]

1. Pelosi will send the Articles of impeachment to the Senate in due time...i.e. once she's convinced that the American public are aware of everyone of McConnells attempt to thwart an impartial trial.

2. There will be enough Republicans voting to stop McConnell from preventing witnesses.

3. Judge Roberts will control the trial enough to ensure that there is some semblance of impartiality...he may remove some Senators if they continue to be openly partial.

4. The trial will show that Trump is clearly guilty of the charges.

5. Trump will not be removed from office, but the American people will be witness to the fact that the vast majority of Republican Senators are a bunch of spineless weenies.

6. The Republicans will lose the Presidency, the House and the Senate in the 2020 elections.

Floridly delusional.

How ironic - a Trumbot calling some else delusional!

Not just someone else, but a lost in space Democrat, for whom the phrase "wishful thinking" was created.

 

[protectionist]

5. I read Gregg Jarrett's "Witch Hunt" it took a week, that is a thick book. It names all the players in the Operation Crossfire Hurricane coup plot. I hope Durham nails all the conspirators.

A week? Fast reader. It's a thick book, but you really understand this complex MEGO stuff (My Eyes Glaze Over) when you read it. Hopeless to try to get any comprehension from the news media these days. I would like to see prosecution of the Democratic Campaign for hiring all these lies! At least them --- others as possible. Comey, of course. What a dreadful man. He ruined Hillary, she thinks, then he turned around and tried hard to ruin Trump --- I have thought for a long time that he just wanted to be prez himself. It was plausible: George H.W. Bush came from the CIA, after all. Comey was trying to destroy everyone in his path!

I agree that Jarrett went into excruciating detail of every sub-plot in the book, and then repeated it. That said, the book was hard to put down. I like at the end he lists all the players and their roles. I would also have liked a "summary" of the coup plots as a quick reference to rebut posters here lying about the facts of the case.
Hillary ruined Hillary, Comey didn't do his job and pass the evidence to Lynch, as he should have. He either let her skate, or was ordered by Lynch to let her skate. Wonder what Bill Clinton promised her in the plane on the tarmac? Comey was also up to his neck in Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the biggest scandal in US history, illegally spying on the Trump campaign. So he's not thinking about being president, he's trying to stay out of prison.

James Comey - Wikipedia
He has an impressive resume'. Was almost appointed to the USSC, but was too moderate for the dems. He was appointed by Bush?! It doesn't say if he's a democrat or a Republican.

Like many DC caverock dwellers, he's an opportunist. His boss was a Democrat. He thought the next POTUS was going to be a Democrat, so he threw his chips in with them.

Then he just twisted and turned to whatever seemed to be a good idea at the moment.

 

[kyzr]

5. I read Gregg Jarrett's "Witch Hunt" it took a week, that is a thick book. It names all the players in the Operation Crossfire Hurricane coup plot. I hope Durham nails all the conspirators.

A week? Fast reader. It's a thick book, but you really understand this complex MEGO stuff (My Eyes Glaze Over) when you read it. Hopeless to try to get any comprehension from the news media these days. I would like to see prosecution of the Democratic Campaign for hiring all these lies! At least them --- others as possible. Comey, of course. What a dreadful man. He ruined Hillary, she thinks, then he turned around and tried hard to ruin Trump --- I have thought for a long time that he just wanted to be prez himself. It was plausible: George H.W. Bush came from the CIA, after all. Comey was trying to destroy everyone in his path!

I agree that Jarrett went into excruciating detail of every sub-plot in the book, and then repeated it. That said, the book was hard to put down. I like at the end he lists all the players and their roles. I would also have liked a "summary" of the coup plots as a quick reference to rebut posters here lying about the facts of the case.
Hillary ruined Hillary, Comey didn't do his job and pass the evidence to Lynch, as he should have. He either let her skate, or was ordered by Lynch to let her skate. Wonder what Bill Clinton promised her in the plane on the tarmac? Comey was also up to his neck in Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the biggest scandal in US history, illegally spying on the Trump campaign. So he's not thinking about being president, he's trying to stay out of prison.

James Comey - Wikipedia
He has an impressive resume'. Was almost appointed to the USSC, but was too moderate for the dems. He was appointed by Bush?! It doesn't say if he's a democrat or a Republican.

Like many DC caverock dwellers, he's an opportunist. His boss was a Democrat. He thought the next POTUS was going to be a Democrat, so he threw his chips in with them.

Then he just twisted and turned to whatever seemed to be a good idea at the moment.

Totally agree, he was a good soldier and followed bad orders too long. If Operation Crossfire Hurricane started legitimately, it went off the rails shortly thereafter; Comey should have bailed when he was asked to falsify FISA warrants. As you say, he probably bet on Hillary winning and getting rewarded? Wow, was that ever a bad bet.

 

[BS Filter]

Yep, she is batshit crazy..................and has yet to impeach Trump.

follow the bouncing ball m'k? ...

articles of impeachment are the charges.

trump has been charged.

the articles haven't gone to the courthouse aka the senate yet .

that doesn't mean donny hasn't been charged.

see how easy that was?

good.

now accept it, cause it's fini.

The Constitutional Expert on impeachment the Dimwingers in the House brought in to testify and educate them on impeachment says you are full of shit.

Jonathan Turley refutes Dem lawyer, says Trump was impeached despite withheld articles
Jonathan Turley refutes Dem lawyer, says Trump was impeached despite withheld articles

I testified against Trump’s impeachment. But let’s not pretend it didn’t happen.
Constitutional reality doesn’t rest on the House sending the articles over to the Senate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...chment-lets-not-pretend-that-it-didnt-happen/

I believe the Democrat lawyer.

that doesn't matter. it's a done deal. too bad, so sad.

Too bad Trump is going to be acquitted and reelected. Haha.

 

[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.

Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:

1. 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;
2. 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
3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.

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.

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.

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.

because.... now understand this..................




the WB act specifically states that he/she stays anonymous unless he/she wants to come fwd or it impedes the investigation. he/she doesn't want to be known & how can you blame them since the (R) are out for blood & will protect donny at all costs? & whatever the WB stated to the ICIG, everything has been verified & investigations have not been impeded. & as for other 'closed' door testimony............ nobody that testified 'blew the whistle', so they didn't need to keep their identity secret from retaliation.

what? no thanx for the credible info nobody else got showing you that WB protocol gives the WB a lawful right not to be revealed?

Oh shut up

i know you hate true facts, but that is filed in the

too fucking bad file.

Son, you wouldn’t know a fact if you shit one out

 

[Circe]

5. I read Gregg Jarrett's "Witch Hunt" it took a week, that is a thick book. It names all the players in the Operation Crossfire Hurricane coup plot. I hope Durham nails all the conspirators.

A week? Fast reader. It's a thick book, but you really understand this complex MEGO stuff (My Eyes Glaze Over) when you read it. Hopeless to try to get any comprehension from the news media these days. I would like to see prosecution of the Democratic Campaign for hiring all these lies! At least them --- others as possible. Comey, of course. What a dreadful man. He ruined Hillary, she thinks, then he turned around and tried hard to ruin Trump --- I have thought for a long time that he just wanted to be prez himself. It was plausible: George H.W. Bush came from the CIA, after all. Comey was trying to destroy everyone in his path!

I agree that Jarrett went into excruciating detail of every sub-plot in the book, and then repeated it. That said, the book was hard to put down. I like at the end he lists all the players and their roles. I would also have liked a "summary" of the coup plots as a quick reference to rebut posters here lying about the facts of the case.
Hillary ruined Hillary, Comey didn't do his job and pass the evidence to Lynch, as he should have. He either let her skate, or was ordered by Lynch to let her skate. Wonder what Bill Clinton promised her in the plane on the tarmac? Comey was also up to his neck in Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the biggest scandal in US history, illegally spying on the Trump campaign. So he's not thinking about being president, he's trying to stay out of prison.

James Comey - Wikipedia
He has an impressive resume'. Was almost appointed to the USSC, but was too moderate for the dems. He was appointed by Bush?! It doesn't say if he's a democrat or a Republican.

You are not relieving me of the suspicion that the whole thing has been in aid of Comey making himself Prez. He can't now, of course: disgraced in the eyes of both parties. I read the Hillary book, and wow, she is not a fan, I have to tell you. Or don't, because you probably read that one, too.

Well, I'm reading the Jarrett book word for word, but of course as soon as the Senate dismisses or acquits, it will all be as forgotten as that Plame thing with the "yellow cake." Uraniam from some very dry African country, can't remember which.

 

[Circe]

[
Gregg Jarrett might be the most important author in America right now. His previous book, about the Russian collusion hoax was a humdinger too.

Jarrett is a one man wrecking crew for all the Democrat scams, hoaxes, snow jobs.

Interesting you say he's important He DOES succeed, IMO, with making the terminally smoky clear, and that's very helpful. He says in this book that the Russia Hoax book was simply before its time (in the sense that everything kept going!) and so he wrote this one to cover the stuff that has come up since. He does write well. It is helpful in comprehending this assault on democracy before it disappears from view forever..

Sooner the better, IMO. Sheeeeesh.

 

[Circe]

Like many DC caverock dwellers, he's an opportunist. His boss was a Democrat. He thought the next POTUS was going to be a Democrat, so he threw his chips in with them.

Then he just twisted and turned to whatever seemed to be a good idea at the moment.

I guess! The whole Comey thing is so confusing and puzzling I can't make much sense of it, but am trusting my intuition that he wanted to be prez himself and was mad at all these people (Hillary, Trump) that were getting in ahead of him and tried to take them all down.

I don't think history is going to make much sense of Comey. I sure don't.

 

[Circe]

[ As you say, he probably bet on Hillary winning and getting rewarded? Wow, was that ever a bad bet.

Yeah --- I like your analysis and that of others here: that the bottom line is that Strzok and Comey and many were SURE Hillary would win (as were we nearly all, more fool us) and so ----- no problem. WHATEVER illegality they got up to: they'd get credit, not blame.

Needs serious housecleaning. I'm disgusted.