Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[skye]

Pelousy will never send the paper to the Senate..... not if she can help it

it is what it is my friends...

Socialist Left scum like her, plus the rest of the other DemRats...... are just that....scum

 

[Jitss617]

The hoax

 

[playtime]

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

that (D) lawyer is only right when he agrees with aflak.

 

[playtime]

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.

if you gave me credit - i missed it. i'm not at all concerned about the (D)s keeping the identity a secret. it's the fucking (R)s that will be sitting in with the intent to go di-rectly to the tribblehead... look what's happening now - donny is breaking the law by tweeting (then deleting) the possible identity of the WB. whoever was able to catch the name - whether it really is the WB or not, now has them on the radar for some kook to take matters into their own hands.

private phone call? there is no 'private' phone call. 11 people were in on it. didn't you know that? you are angry that your prez got outed, not that he committed an impeachable offense. seems you are being loyal to a man & not the constitution.

 

[protectionist]

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.

if you gave me credit - i missed it. i'm not at all concerned about the (D)s keeping the identity a secret. it's the fucking (R)s that will be sitting in with the intent to go di-rectly to the tribblehead... look what's happening now - donny is breaking the law by tweeting (then deleting) the possible identity of the WB. whoever was able to catch the name - whether it really is the WB or not, now has them on the radar for some kook to take matters into their own hands.

private phone call? there is no 'private' phone call. 11 people were in on it. didn't you know that? you are angry that your prez got outed, not that he committed an impeachable offense. seems you are being loyal to a man & not the constitution.

Very strange to see a post still talking about "impeachable offense"

. Even totally left Loons have gotten past that, and now just blabber about why the charges should not go to the Senate.

 

[hadit]

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.

if you gave me credit - i missed it. i'm not at all concerned about the (D)s keeping the identity a secret. it's the fucking (R)s that will be sitting in with the intent to go di-rectly to the tribblehead... look what's happening now - donny is breaking the law by tweeting (then deleting) the possible identity of the WB. whoever was able to catch the name - whether it really is the WB or not, now has them on the radar for some kook to take matters into their own hands.

private phone call? there is no 'private' phone call. 11 people were in on it. didn't you know that? you are angry that your prez got outed, not that he committed an impeachable offense. seems you are being loyal to a man & not the constitution.

You're concerned that politicians might not keep a secret? Surprise, surprise. That's why the Mueller report was made available in redacted form only to those with the proper clearance, because the democrats would rush to the cameras with their cherry-picked lines. And yes, a call between the president and a foreign leader is considered private among the people on it. Who took it upon themselves to divulge its contents is the question.

 

[jc456]

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

that (D) lawyer is only right when he agrees with aflak.

the irony huh?

 

[jc456]

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.

if you gave me credit - i missed it. i'm not at all concerned about the (D)s keeping the identity a secret. it's the fucking (R)s that will be sitting in with the intent to go di-rectly to the tribblehead... look what's happening now - donny is breaking the law by tweeting (then deleting) the possible identity of the WB. whoever was able to catch the name - whether it really is the WB or not, now has them on the radar for some kook to take matters into their own hands.

private phone call? there is no 'private' phone call. 11 people were in on it. didn't you know that? you are angry that your prez got outed, not that he committed an impeachable offense. seems you are being loyal to a man & not the constitution.

he got outed? for what? name what he did that he got outed for? He's still prez, right? hmmmmmm you okay flake?

 

[jc456]

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.

if you gave me credit - i missed it. i'm not at all concerned about the (D)s keeping the identity a secret. it's the fucking (R)s that will be sitting in with the intent to go di-rectly to the tribblehead... look what's happening now - donny is breaking the law by tweeting (then deleting) the possible identity of the WB. whoever was able to catch the name - whether it really is the WB or not, now has them on the radar for some kook to take matters into their own hands.

private phone call? there is no 'private' phone call. 11 people were in on it. didn't you know that? you are angry that your prez got outed, not that he committed an impeachable offense. seems you are being loyal to a man & not the constitution.

You're concerned that politicians might not keep a secret? Surprise, surprise. That's why the Mueller report was made available in redacted form only to those with the proper clearance, because the democrats would rush to the cameras with their cherry-picked lines. And yes, a call between the president and a foreign leader is considered private among the people on it. Who took it upon themselves to divulge its contents is the question.

again, the whistleblower is Schitt's. All one has to do is follow the markers.