Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

---

First, I did not agree or disagree with you.

Second, there is no way you or I can know that.

Third, I imagine plenty of forms have a mixture of types of information.

Fourth, the line drawing exercise is difficult. For example, WB reads a document that contains damning information. The document is technically hearsay. Does WB have direct knowledge.

Fifth, you are avoiding the question. Why does it matter to you whether the WB had direct or second-hand info? If investigated that info will turn out to be accurate, inaccurate or a mix. Eyewitnesses testify incorrectly everyday in Court. hearsay turns out to be true all the time,. Isn't what actually happened, rather than the provenance of the original report, what matters?

---

What happened has been proven with the declassification of the actual transcript. The transcript proves the whistleblower wrong. The burden is on the whistleblower who has already lied.

---

People get convicted of extortion all the time without making explicit demands.

Seeing this episode as a "shakedown" is reasonable based on what we already know, which is why the White House tried to hide the transcript.

---

It may be why they tried to hide the transcript. It may also be that they saw the material as privileged for legitimate reasons. In the end they did release it, which is more than Trump's predecessors would likely have done. And they released the complaint at the behest of a Republican Senate.

If Trump is covering up, he's not very experienced at it.

---

I would have understood not releasing the transcript to the public; I think it sets Ana's precedent. But transferring it to the super-duper secret server has nothing to do with national security and everyone knows it.

---

I'm not up on the secret server aspect, but executive privilege doesn't just apply to the public. It applies to the other branches of government as well. And it's emphatically not limited to national security concerns. It's about promoting candor and shielding the executive from undue concern for appearances.

---

It was the server storage I was talking about when I said the White House his the document. The White House has confirmed that they shifted the transcript storage from where conversations of this type are normally stored to a server that generally holds only "code word" documents, meaning the type of document that can reveal assets and strategies.

There is no reason for this document or apparently several like it to be on the code word server. Other than the fact that their discovery would cause political damage to POTUS. Simply put, the adults in the room knew POTUS had screwed up and they tried to hide it. By misusing important government resources.

While the residents of this particular fantasyland turn mental gymnastics to deflect, minimize and rationalize POTUS mistake, his own people know he screwed the pooch here.

I will give him thisI doubt POTUS had anything to do with the server placement. He is sincere when he looks at the transcript and says he sees a perfect phone call. He believed with his whole heart that anything he does is perfect. Thus, the difference between Trump and Nixon, Clinton, Johnson and several other crooks who have held the office is that Trump doesn't even understand that he is on the wrong side of the law.

---

They switched servers because details of 2 conversations, one with Australia's leader and one with Mexico's leader, had been leaked. Those communications are privileged, go toward open communication between leaders, and may contain info about assets and strategies. Switching servers limits leaks due to fewer people having access.

"Trump doesn't even understand that he is on the wrong side of the law."

Because Trump is not in violation of the law.

Geez, your spite is killing your brain cells.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

---

First, I did not agree or disagree with you.

Second, there is no way you or I can know that.

Third, I imagine plenty of forms have a mixture of types of information.

Fourth, the line drawing exercise is difficult. For example, WB reads a document that contains damning information. The document is technically hearsay. Does WB have direct knowledge.

Fifth, you are avoiding the question. Why does it matter to you whether the WB had direct or second-hand info? If investigated that info will turn out to be accurate, inaccurate or a mix. Eyewitnesses testify incorrectly everyday in Court. hearsay turns out to be true all the time,. Isn't what actually happened, rather than the provenance of the original report, what matters?

---

What happened has been proven with the declassification of the actual transcript. The transcript proves the whistleblower wrong. The burden is on the whistleblower who has already lied.

---

People get convicted of extortion all the time without making explicit demands.

Seeing this episode as a "shakedown" is reasonable based on what we already know, which is why the White House tried to hide the transcript.

---

It may be why they tried to hide the transcript. It may also be that they saw the material as privileged for legitimate reasons. In the end they did release it, which is more than Trump's predecessors would likely have done. And they released the complaint at the behest of a Republican Senate.

If Trump is covering up, he's not very experienced at it.

---

I would have understood not releasing the transcript to the public; I think it sets Ana's precedent. But transferring it to the super-duper secret server has nothing to do with national security and everyone knows it.

---

I'm not up on the secret server aspect, but executive privilege doesn't just apply to the public. It applies to the other branches of government as well. And it's emphatically not limited to national security concerns. It's about promoting candor and shielding the executive from undue concern for appearances.

---

It was the server storage I was talking about when I said the White House hid the document. The White House has confirmed that they shifted the transcript storage from where conversations of this type are normally stored to a server that generally holds only "code word" documents, meaning the type of document that can reveal assets and strategies.

There is no reason for this document or apparently several like it to be on the code word server. Other than the fact that their discovery would cause political damage to POTUS. Simply put, the adults in the room knew POTUS had screwed up and they tried to hide it. By misusing important government resources.

While the residents of this particular fantasyland turn mental gymnastics to deflect, minimize and rationalize POTUS' mistake, his own people know he screwed the pooch here.

I will give him thisI doubt POTUS had anything to do with the server placement. He is sincere when he looks at the transcript and says he sees a perfect phone call. He believed with his whole heart that anything he does is perfect. Thus, the difference between Trump and Nixon, Clinton, Johnson and several other crooks who have held the office is that Trump doesn't even understand that he is on the wrong side of the law.

---

To me this sounds like the Hillary server thing, only less interesting. Just because it was politically sensitive doesn't mean it was on the wrong side of the law. And at least there was no systematic effort to hide information that the public actually had a right to see.

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.

---

IC or WH staff leaked to WB. But did not WB leak to press?

---

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

[url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/][/url]https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/


Don't you think that's odd?

---

No. Sounds like an affidavit for a search warrant, maybe better. A WB complaint has to be evaluated, that is what Maguire testified about when he wasn't being taunted by the clowns. The credibility of first hand information is higher; second hand is lower but not excluded.

---

But Maguire's job, as he testified to and repeated numerous times, was not to assess or investigate the credibility (Webster definition of credible) of the specifics within the complaint, but he was to insure the complaint fit or did not fit the protocol to forward to House and Senate committees. He stated several times that it was the FBI's job to investigate the details of the complaint as to whether or not true or false.

My understanding is that it fit the DNI's definition of "credible" only because the person filing it was under the employ of a DNI agency not because of the specific details of the complaint.

---

You're right. It wasn't the DNI's job to find it credible (though he did). It was the inspector general's job.

And how did he find it?

Oh....

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

It was not a ****ing leak. Leaks don't go through protocol you idiot.

He literally followed the law. He went straight through the process. The DNI literally said everything he did was lawful and right.

You are a ****ing lunatic.

---

Maguire TOLD YOU this whistle blower was NOT from the intelligence community.

The IC Inspector General **ALSO** said this fake whistle blower was NOT from the intelligence community.

Kurt Volker, US envoy to Ukraine, just resigned from the job.

All those people INSISTING the whistleblower is from the intelligence community and a CIA agent clearly didn't listen to or believe DNI Maguire's testimony or the IC IG's conclusions that were discussed Thursday.

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.

---

IC or WH staff leaked to WB. But did not WB leak to press?

---

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

[url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/][/url]https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/


Don't you think that's odd?

---

No. Sounds like an affidavit for a search warrant, maybe better. A WB complaint has to be evaluated, that is what Maguire testified about when he wasn't being taunted by the clowns. The credibility of first hand information is higher; second hand is lower but not excluded.

---

But Maguire's job, as he testified to and repeated numerous times, was not to assess or investigate the credibility (Webster definition of credible) of the specifics within the complaint, but he was to insure the complaint fit or did not fit the protocol to forward to House and Senate committees. He stated several times that it was the FBI's job to investigate the details of the complaint as to whether or not true or false.

My understanding is that it fit the DNI's definition of "credible" only because the person filing it was under the employ of a DNI agency not because of the specific details of the complaint.

---

Yes. Still goes to weight and credibility.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

It was not a ****ing leak. Leaks don't go through protocol you idiot.

He literally followed the law. He went straight through the process. The DNI literally said everything he did was lawful and right.

You are a ****ing lunatic.

---

Maguire TOLD YOU this whistle blower was NOT from the intelligence community.

The IC Inspector General **ALSO** said this fake whistle blower was NOT from the intelligence community.

Kurt Volker, US envoy to Ukraine, just resigned from the job.

All those people INSISTING the whistleblower is from the intelligence community and a CIA agent clearly didn't listen to or believe DNI Maguire's testimony or the IC IG's conclusions that were discussed Thursday.

---

What you posted is part of what Drawandstrike of Epoch Times posted last night on Twitter then went on to opine other scenarios. I proved him wrong with the following...start at 7:50 of Maguire's opening statement.

There are rumbles that Trump has lost Moscow Mitch.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.

---

IC or WH staff leaked to WB. But did not WB leak to press?

---

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

[url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/][/url]https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/


Don't you think that's odd?

---

No. Sounds like an affidavit for a search warrant, maybe better. A WB complaint has to be evaluated, that is what Maguire testified about when he wasn't being taunted by the clowns. The credibility of first hand information is higher; second hand is lower but not excluded.

---

But Maguire's job, as he testified to and repeated numerous times, was not to assess or investigate the credibility (Webster definition of credible) of the specifics within the complaint, but he was to insure the complaint fit or did not fit the protocol to forward to House and Senate committees. He stated several times that it was the FBI's job to investigate the details of the complaint as to whether or not true or false.

My understanding is that it fit the DNI's definition of "credible" only because the person filing it was under the employ of a DNI agency not because of the specific details of the complaint.

---

You're right. It wasn't the DNI's job to find it credible (though he did). It was the inspector general's job.

And how did he find it?

Oh....

---

If you'd read the ICIG report, you'd have found that ICIG stated it was credible, but he did not request access to Trump's 7/25 call with the Ukrainian PM due to timing constraints required by law (he sacrificed quality to make a deadline -my assessment). Further on in the report, the ICIG specifically states that "records of the call will be relevant to any further investigation of this matter." (Gives himself an out for a shltty investigation -my assessment)

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

You can do both. Obama would have prosecuted the leak and defended the whistleblower, would have been an interesting show. But the fact that you call him a leaker doesn't mean he's not also a whistleblower.

---

Really? Check out what they did in fast and furious if you actually believe that.

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

Trump will be gone eventually.

You keep pushing this narrative that Democrats want him out no matter what. Even to the point of creating investigations in bad faith.

But that's just simply not true. Pelosi wouldn't even allow formal explicit impeachment hearings UNTIL
THIS WEEK. Even after it was obvious the President obstructed Justice. Pelosi has been fighting her own party on this.

You guys. Seriously. Doc is wrong constantly. I don't expect much from him. Remember when he SWORE he had proof that Flynn was innocent? Post after post after post. Rifle got in on it too.

At some point, you need to ask yourself what you know that the world doesn't. If you can't answer that, then maybe you need to step back from the computer.

If Trump did what he did. He SHOULD be gone. If he was pressuring foreign powers to find dirt to help him win an election, that is an atrocious abuse of power.

He can't be trusted.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Trump will be gone eventually.

You keep pushing this narrative that Democrats want him out no matter what. Even to the point of creating investigations in bad faith.

But that's just simply not true. Pelosi wouldn't even allow formal explicit impeachment hearings UNTIL
THIS WEEK. Even after it was obvious the President obstructed Justice. Pelosi has been fighting her own party on this.

You guys. Seriously. Doc is wrong constantly. I don't expect much from him. Remember when he SWORE he had proof that Flynn was innocent? Post after post after post. Rifle got in on it too.

At some point, you need to ask yourself what you know that the world doesn't. If you can't answer that, then maybe you need to step back from the computer.

If Trump did what he did. He SHOULD be gone. If he was pressuring foreign powers to find dirt to help him win an election, that is an atrocious abuse of power.

He can't be trusted.

---

For what it's worth, perspective needs to be added. We literally initiated a multi agency investigation into a duly elected president that sent private citizens to jail on unrelated charges, spied on private US citizens where no wrong doing was found, and likely set the precedent for abuse of special counsel authority in the future. That's institutional damage, because knuckleheads can be removed from office at the ballot box.

EDIT: And please don't try to throw the trust card around with today's politics. This is a power struggle not a principle struggle.

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

And if, like all the other claims, the facts prove Trump did not break the law, will you finally stop these wasteful and malicious attacks?

I think we know you have no interest in anything but hurting Trump, no matter how many lies you use to try.

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Obama would have prosecuted the leak and defended the whistleblower, would have been an interesting show.

---

LOL

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

You poor man.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

---

Rule of law under our Constitution convicted people who got due process. That is not a witch hunt. No matter how many dozens of times it gets retweeted.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

---

Rule of law under our Constitution convicted people who got due process. That is not a witch hunt. No matter how many dozens of times it gets retweeted.

---

Quash continues to prove he is a Democrat, despite his protests.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

---

Rule of law under our Constitution convicted people who got due process. That is not a witch hunt. No matter how many dozens of times it gets retweeted.

---

But is it normal to look for a crime for years and years and years, demanding indictment without evidence?

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

---

Rule of law under our Constitution convicted people who got due process. That is not a witch hunt. No matter how many dozens of times it gets retweeted.

---

But is it normal to look for a crime for years and years and years, demanding indictment without evidence?

---

33 Benghazi hearings. You tell me.

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

---

Rule of law under our Constitution convicted people who got due process. That is not a witch hunt. No matter how many dozens of times it gets retweeted.

---

But is it normal to look for a crime for years and years and years, demanding indictment without evidence?

---

33 Benghazi hearings. You tell me.

---

A true Democrat, old quash.

Secondhand does not equal a leak.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

---

Rule of law under our Constitution convicted people who got due process. That is not a witch hunt. No matter how many dozens of times it gets retweeted.

---

At the time, the witches were convicted under law and special court prosecutors. It's the abuse that's the problem.

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

---

Rule of law under our Constitution convicted people who got due process. That is not a witch hunt. No matter how many dozens of times it gets retweeted.

---

But is it normal to look for a crime for years and years and years, demanding indictment without evidence?

---

33 Benghazi hearings. You tell me.

---

People died. Massive cover up.

But I don't remember people yelling IMPEACHMENT.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

It was not a ****ing leak. Leaks don't go through protocol you idiot.

He literally followed the law. He went straight through the process. The DNI literally said everything he did was lawful and right.

You are a ****ing lunatic.

---

Maguire TOLD YOU this whistle blower was NOT from the intelligence community.

The IC Inspector General **ALSO** said this fake whistle blower was NOT from the intelligence community.

Kurt Volker, US envoy to Ukraine, just resigned from the job.

All those people INSISTING the whistleblower is from the intelligence community and a CIA agent clearly didn't listen to or believe DNI Maguire's testimony or the IC IG's conclusions that were discussed Thursday.

---

Volker resigned so he won't be constrained by an imposition of privilege by the White House when he testifies before those conducting the impeachment inquiry.

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

---

Rule of law under our Constitution convicted people who got due process. That is not a witch hunt. No matter how many dozens of times it gets retweeted.

---

But is it normal to look for a crime for years and years and years, demanding indictment without evidence?

---

33 Benghazi hearings. You tell me.

---

People died. Massive cover up.

But I don't remember people yelling IMPEACHMENT.

---

Because those hearings produced no evidence of an impeachable offense. Let's see what happens here.

quash said:

---

Secondhand does not equal a leak.

---

Simple logic says yes because firsthand wasn't authorized to talk.

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Secondhand does not equal a leak.

---

Simple logic says yes because firsthand wasn't authorized to talk.

---

This is so dumb on its face. Linda Tripp was second-hand, too.

It doesn't matter what the whistleblower saw, it matters if it's true.

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Secondhand does not equal a leak.

---

Simple logic says yes because firsthand wasn't authorized to talk.

---

That's an assumption. The WB may have had lawful access to the info.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Secondhand does not equal a leak.

---

Simple logic says yes because firsthand wasn't authorized to talk.

---

This is so dumb on its face. Linda Tripp was second-hand, too.

It doesn't matter what the whistleblower saw, it matters if it's true.

---

And in the Trump's WB case, the WB's details have been proven false in light of published transcripts.

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

---

Rule of law under our Constitution convicted people who got due process. That is not a witch hunt. No matter how many dozens of times it gets retweeted.

---

But is it normal to look for a crime for years and years and years, demanding indictment without evidence?

---

33 Benghazi hearings. You tell me.

---

People died. Massive cover up.

But I don't remember people yelling IMPEACHMENT.

---

Because those hearings produced no evidence of an impeachable offense. Let's see what happens here.

---

Nor did the WB...yet here we are.

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Secondhand does not equal a leak.

---

Simple logic says yes because firsthand wasn't authorized to talk.

---

This is so dumb on its face. Linda Tripp was second-hand, too.

It doesn't matter what the whistleblower saw, it matters if it's true.

---

And in the Trump's WB case, the WB's details have been proven false in light of published transcripts.

---

Saying that 1000 times isn't going to make it true. At best, if you want to be purposefully obtuse about what was said and what was implied, it doesn't prove any thing beyond a reasonable doubt. What the transcript 100% does not do, is prove anything the whistleblower said to be false.

In fact the main thrust of the whistleblower accusation has been admitted to by the involved parties, they just dispute that certain actions were connected to each other, and failing that they argue that whatever happened was on the up and up, a ridiculous position but Trump's base isn't exactly know for their critical thinking skills.