Drudge is embarrassing himself by hyping up the Trump impeachment story...

[iceberg]

Cut through the BS both ways.

You only do it one way usually. If the Don changed rules to go after someone, how would that sit with you? If he tweeted a month ago about a topic then a month later went OH NOs, what would you do or think?

And if impeachment is an overreaction, can we focus on the actions, not the people?

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Intel Community Secretly Nixed Whistleblower Demand Of First-Hand Info

Thanks for the link. Would love to know who changed the guidelines and why? Perhaps this whistlerblower initiated it? I don’t know. I think it’s a valid question but I don’t see a conspiracy here. The only thing this rule change did was give the whistleblower the ability to submit a report for the IG to review. It was the IG who deemed it of urgent concern. Remember the details of this report was kept under wraps until Trump released it. And the main issues involved in this situation are really focused on what Trump actually said on a phone call and what his lawyer was doing in Ukraine.

The rule change seems like a relatively insignificant side note. Are you seeing something there that I’m not?

we get "heresay" info that due to protections in our system, is not allowed.
we change our system to allow it
we go after the president
you see nothing to be alarmed about. you NEVER see anything done to trump to be alarmed about HOWEVER if it were to happen to the left, i'm 99.999% sure you'd be livid, yet now that a protection in our system is bypassed for the sole reason of attacking the president, you're like "well it's just to review it..." HOWEVER they were in full impeach mode before even SEEING said evidence (publicly) and no one raises an eyebrow.

kavanaugh was "Just to review it"
russia was "just to review it"
trumps lunch - just to review it.

the event itself schiff tweeted about a MONTH ago. the whistleblower said he had dirt, trump released said "dirt" and now you're saying TRUMP released it all as if it's now HIS fault he's being brought up for impeachment before it's even "reviewed"

and you see nothing wrong here. all they have then slade is HERESAY evidence bound by the sheer fact they had to allow it just to look at it FOR THIS AND ONLY THIS PURPOSE. this is fishing and making up your own god damn catch of the day.

the left is off in impeachment AGAIN over heresay and you're ok with this shit. our government is morphing in front of our eyes and every protection and separation of power we've ever known is tossed aside and you "see nothing of significant" note.

what is being done today is wrong and being done for the sole reason to attack a political opponent and you just don't give a flying horse shit. at this point there is zero to discuss with you because EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING the left does that is bypassing our checks and balances is simply NOT significant to you.

cause...trump.

how fucked up a country do you really want to have that is so emotionally unstable you'll talk yourself into such bullshit?

just for grins, what law did the president break in that conversation? please cite it and how he broke it.

Uhh no that’s not at all what I said. I actually said that it was a valid question. I didn’t say there was nothing there. But I didn’t point out that the controversy is more about they actual phone call than they heresay whistleblower report so I do t see how this factors in in a significant way.

Also a system wasn’t bypassed, it appears to have been legally changed. Perhaps it was changed because the whistlerblower had something to say and no avenue to voice his/her concerns, I don’t know. Like I said I’m open to a conversation about it. But I’m not seeing how it’s a conspiracy here.

I hope there was an avenue for anybody to report corruption and troubling things they learn in our government whether they see it first hand or hear about it. Not saying hearsay should carry as much weight but as second hand but there should be the ability to voice concerns. Wouldn’t you agree?

Not when done to attack 1 person. Then it *is* personal.

Again, they do this to your father, you good still? Attack him for unverified heresy that 3 days prior was NOT legal? And if you are the expert on legality tell me wo changed it and by what process and ANY OTHER REASON than going after Trump.

You change a process to improve it. Not use it against someone. Put your damn hate down and open your eyes to what this alliows LONG AFTER trump is gone.

 

[Slade3200]

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Intel Community Secretly Nixed Whistleblower Demand Of First-Hand Info

Thanks for the link. Would love to know who changed the guidelines and why? Perhaps this whistlerblower initiated it? I don’t know. I think it’s a valid question but I don’t see a conspiracy here. The only thing this rule change did was give the whistleblower the ability to submit a report for the IG to review. It was the IG who deemed it of urgent concern. Remember the details of this report was kept under wraps until Trump released it. And the main issues involved in this situation are really focused on what Trump actually said on a phone call and what his lawyer was doing in Ukraine.

The rule change seems like a relatively insignificant side note. Are you seeing something there that I’m not?

we get "heresay" info that due to protections in our system, is not allowed.
we change our system to allow it
we go after the president
you see nothing to be alarmed about. you NEVER see anything done to trump to be alarmed about HOWEVER if it were to happen to the left, i'm 99.999% sure you'd be livid, yet now that a protection in our system is bypassed for the sole reason of attacking the president, you're like "well it's just to review it..." HOWEVER they were in full impeach mode before even SEEING said evidence (publicly) and no one raises an eyebrow.

kavanaugh was "Just to review it"
russia was "just to review it"
trumps lunch - just to review it.

the event itself schiff tweeted about a MONTH ago. the whistleblower said he had dirt, trump released said "dirt" and now you're saying TRUMP released it all as if it's now HIS fault he's being brought up for impeachment before it's even "reviewed"

and you see nothing wrong here. all they have then slade is HERESAY evidence bound by the sheer fact they had to allow it just to look at it FOR THIS AND ONLY THIS PURPOSE. this is fishing and making up your own god damn catch of the day.

the left is off in impeachment AGAIN over heresay and you're ok with this shit. our government is morphing in front of our eyes and every protection and separation of power we've ever known is tossed aside and you "see nothing of significant" note.

what is being done today is wrong and being done for the sole reason to attack a political opponent and you just don't give a flying horse shit. at this point there is zero to discuss with you because EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING the left does that is bypassing our checks and balances is simply NOT significant to you.

cause...trump.

how fucked up a country do you really want to have that is so emotionally unstable you'll talk yourself into such bullshit?

just for grins, what law did the president break in that conversation? please cite it and how he broke it.

Uhh no that’s not at all what I said. I actually said that it was a valid question. I didn’t say there was nothing there. But I didn’t point out that the controversy is more about they actual phone call than they heresay whistleblower report so I do t see how this factors in in a significant way.

Also a system wasn’t bypassed, it appears to have been legally changed. Perhaps it was changed because the whistlerblower had something to say and no avenue to voice his/her concerns, I don’t know. Like I said I’m open to a conversation about it. But I’m not seeing how it’s a conspiracy here.

I hope there was an avenue for anybody to report corruption and troubling things they learn in our government whether they see it first hand or hear about it. Not saying hearsay should carry as much weight but as second hand but there should be the ability to voice concerns. Wouldn’t you agree?

Not when done to attack 1 person. Then it *is* personal.

Again, they do this to your father, you good still? Attack him for unverified heresy that 3 days prior was NOT legal? And if you are the expert on legality tell me wo changed it and by what process and ANY OTHER REASON than going after Trump.

You change a process to improve it. Not use it against someone. Put your damn hate down and open your eyes to what this alliows LONG AFTER trump is gone.

You call it an attack but it doesn’t sound like youve considered the other perspective. Like a staffer being exposed to actions by our president that appear corrupt and dangerous. You paint it like it’s all a political attack, but perhaps it’s a civil servant trying to protect their country from what they feel is an abuse of power. And following the legal procedure to voice those concerns... you seem to be making a point that this person should of had no avenue to express these concerns because they didn’t have first hand exposure. Is that right?

You call it unverified heresay but all the WB did was submit a report and it was up to the IG (a guy I’ve heard most republicans stand behind) to determine its credibility. And again, the bulk of this situation isn’t centered around the WB report it’s centered around trumps now public statements and a phone call, all first hand.

 

[Slade3200]

You’re right, presidential misconduct and impeachment is no big deal... we should just be focusing on how stupid the dems are, right?!

Come on, slade. You don't find it odd a month ago schiff tweeted about AL this?

That they changed whistleblower rules JUST BEFORE going after Trump?

To anyone without a dog in this race you'd scream SET UP..

I think there is a lot of over politicalization going on but cut through the BS, I think it’s pretty clear what Trump was trying to do with that phone call and with Gulianis trip to Ukraine. I think it is an abuse of his power. I don’t think it rises to impeachment as I’d rather see him voted out of office. The people knew he was a sleezy businessman and they voted him in. He should get called out on all his BS but the right way to exit is from a vote.

Cut through the BS both ways.

You only do it one way usually. If the Don changed rules to go after someone, how would that sit with you? If he tweeted a month ago about a topic then a month later went OH NOs, what would you do or think?

And if impeachment is an overreaction, can we focus on the actions, not the people?

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

So if you hear about something corrupt going on you don’t think there should be any way to report it? Really?

 

[iceberg]

Intel Community Secretly Nixed Whistleblower Demand Of First-Hand Info

Thanks for the link. Would love to know who changed the guidelines and why? Perhaps this whistlerblower initiated it? I don’t know. I think it’s a valid question but I don’t see a conspiracy here. The only thing this rule change did was give the whistleblower the ability to submit a report for the IG to review. It was the IG who deemed it of urgent concern. Remember the details of this report was kept under wraps until Trump released it. And the main issues involved in this situation are really focused on what Trump actually said on a phone call and what his lawyer was doing in Ukraine.

The rule change seems like a relatively insignificant side note. Are you seeing something there that I’m not?

we get "heresay" info that due to protections in our system, is not allowed.
we change our system to allow it
we go after the president
you see nothing to be alarmed about. you NEVER see anything done to trump to be alarmed about HOWEVER if it were to happen to the left, i'm 99.999% sure you'd be livid, yet now that a protection in our system is bypassed for the sole reason of attacking the president, you're like "well it's just to review it..." HOWEVER they were in full impeach mode before even SEEING said evidence (publicly) and no one raises an eyebrow.

kavanaugh was "Just to review it"
russia was "just to review it"
trumps lunch - just to review it.

the event itself schiff tweeted about a MONTH ago. the whistleblower said he had dirt, trump released said "dirt" and now you're saying TRUMP released it all as if it's now HIS fault he's being brought up for impeachment before it's even "reviewed"

and you see nothing wrong here. all they have then slade is HERESAY evidence bound by the sheer fact they had to allow it just to look at it FOR THIS AND ONLY THIS PURPOSE. this is fishing and making up your own god damn catch of the day.

the left is off in impeachment AGAIN over heresay and you're ok with this shit. our government is morphing in front of our eyes and every protection and separation of power we've ever known is tossed aside and you "see nothing of significant" note.

what is being done today is wrong and being done for the sole reason to attack a political opponent and you just don't give a flying horse shit. at this point there is zero to discuss with you because EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING the left does that is bypassing our checks and balances is simply NOT significant to you.

cause...trump.

how fucked up a country do you really want to have that is so emotionally unstable you'll talk yourself into such bullshit?

just for grins, what law did the president break in that conversation? please cite it and how he broke it.

Uhh no that’s not at all what I said. I actually said that it was a valid question. I didn’t say there was nothing there. But I didn’t point out that the controversy is more about they actual phone call than they heresay whistleblower report so I do t see how this factors in in a significant way.

Also a system wasn’t bypassed, it appears to have been legally changed. Perhaps it was changed because the whistlerblower had something to say and no avenue to voice his/her concerns, I don’t know. Like I said I’m open to a conversation about it. But I’m not seeing how it’s a conspiracy here.

I hope there was an avenue for anybody to report corruption and troubling things they learn in our government whether they see it first hand or hear about it. Not saying hearsay should carry as much weight but as second hand but there should be the ability to voice concerns. Wouldn’t you agree?

Not when done to attack 1 person. Then it *is* personal.

Again, they do this to your father, you good still? Attack him for unverified heresy that 3 days prior was NOT legal? And if you are the expert on legality tell me wo changed it and by what process and ANY OTHER REASON than going after Trump.

You change a process to improve it. Not use it against someone. Put your damn hate down and open your eyes to what this alliows LONG AFTER trump is gone.

You call it an attack but it doesn’t sound like youve considered the other perspective. Like a staffer being exposed to actions by our president that appear corrupt and dangerous. You paint it like it’s all a political attack, but perhaps it’s a civil servant trying to protect their country from what they feel is an abuse of power. And following the legal procedure to voice those concerns... you seem to be making a point that this person should of had no avenue to express these concerns because they didn’t have first hand exposure. Is that right?

You call it unverified heresay but all the WB did was submit a report and it was up to the IG (a guy I’ve heard most republicans stand behind) to determine its credibility. And again, the bulk of this situation isn’t centered around the WB report it’s centered around trumps now public statements and a phone call, all first hand.

Bullshit.

Like I said, not much sense in discussing issues with someone ok with changing the rules along the way.

For example, you are OK with starting impeachment hearing over heresy evidence.

Next up is why this is OK and it's not. End of story.

 

[Slade3200]

Come on, slade. You don't find it odd a month ago schiff tweeted about AL this?

That they changed whistleblower rules JUST BEFORE going after Trump?

To anyone without a dog in this race you'd scream SET UP..

I think there is a lot of over politicalization going on but cut through the BS, I think it’s pretty clear what Trump was trying to do with that phone call and with Gulianis trip to Ukraine. I think it is an abuse of his power. I don’t think it rises to impeachment as I’d rather see him voted out of office. The people knew he was a sleezy businessman and they voted him in. He should get called out on all his BS but the right way to exit is from a vote.

Cut through the BS both ways.

You only do it one way usually. If the Don changed rules to go after someone, how would that sit with you? If he tweeted a month ago about a topic then a month later went OH NOs, what would you do or think?

And if impeachment is an overreaction, can we focus on the actions, not the people?

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

But he FEELZ Trump is sleeze so this is ok.

This only means I can change our laws and processes at will so I can go after 1 person.

What would we call other countries doing this?

Slade, if they did this to someone you love, still OK or do you call foul?

If somebody initiated an unjust attack on somebody I loved then of course I’d be upset and push back. If I somebody I love broke a law and got called out then I’d stand in their corner but they probably deserve to be held accountable.

 

[iceberg]

I think there is a lot of over politicalization going on but cut through the BS, I think it’s pretty clear what Trump was trying to do with that phone call and with Gulianis trip to Ukraine. I think it is an abuse of his power. I don’t think it rises to impeachment as I’d rather see him voted out of office. The people knew he was a sleezy businessman and they voted him in. He should get called out on all his BS but the right way to exit is from a vote.

Cut through the BS both ways.

You only do it one way usually. If the Don changed rules to go after someone, how would that sit with you? If he tweeted a month ago about a topic then a month later went OH NOs, what would you do or think?

And if impeachment is an overreaction, can we focus on the actions, not the people?

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

But he FEELZ Trump is sleeze so this is ok.

This only means I can change our laws and processes at will so I can go after 1 person.

What would we call other countries doing this?

Slade, if they did this to someone you love, still OK or do you call foul?

If somebody initiated an unjust attack on somebody I loved then of course I’d be upset and push back. If I somebody I love broke a law and got called out then I’d stand in their corner but they probably deserve to be held accountable.

You left out changing the laws along the way so the CAN attack.

Wonder why.

And what law did Trump break again?

 

[Slade3200]

Thanks for the link. Would love to know who changed the guidelines and why? Perhaps this whistlerblower initiated it? I don’t know. I think it’s a valid question but I don’t see a conspiracy here. The only thing this rule change did was give the whistleblower the ability to submit a report for the IG to review. It was the IG who deemed it of urgent concern. Remember the details of this report was kept under wraps until Trump released it. And the main issues involved in this situation are really focused on what Trump actually said on a phone call and what his lawyer was doing in Ukraine.

The rule change seems like a relatively insignificant side note. Are you seeing something there that I’m not?

we get "heresay" info that due to protections in our system, is not allowed.
we change our system to allow it
we go after the president
you see nothing to be alarmed about. you NEVER see anything done to trump to be alarmed about HOWEVER if it were to happen to the left, i'm 99.999% sure you'd be livid, yet now that a protection in our system is bypassed for the sole reason of attacking the president, you're like "well it's just to review it..." HOWEVER they were in full impeach mode before even SEEING said evidence (publicly) and no one raises an eyebrow.

kavanaugh was "Just to review it"
russia was "just to review it"
trumps lunch - just to review it.

the event itself schiff tweeted about a MONTH ago. the whistleblower said he had dirt, trump released said "dirt" and now you're saying TRUMP released it all as if it's now HIS fault he's being brought up for impeachment before it's even "reviewed"

and you see nothing wrong here. all they have then slade is HERESAY evidence bound by the sheer fact they had to allow it just to look at it FOR THIS AND ONLY THIS PURPOSE. this is fishing and making up your own god damn catch of the day.

the left is off in impeachment AGAIN over heresay and you're ok with this shit. our government is morphing in front of our eyes and every protection and separation of power we've ever known is tossed aside and you "see nothing of significant" note.

what is being done today is wrong and being done for the sole reason to attack a political opponent and you just don't give a flying horse shit. at this point there is zero to discuss with you because EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING the left does that is bypassing our checks and balances is simply NOT significant to you.

cause...trump.

how fucked up a country do you really want to have that is so emotionally unstable you'll talk yourself into such bullshit?

just for grins, what law did the president break in that conversation? please cite it and how he broke it.

Uhh no that’s not at all what I said. I actually said that it was a valid question. I didn’t say there was nothing there. But I didn’t point out that the controversy is more about they actual phone call than they heresay whistleblower report so I do t see how this factors in in a significant way.

Also a system wasn’t bypassed, it appears to have been legally changed. Perhaps it was changed because the whistlerblower had something to say and no avenue to voice his/her concerns, I don’t know. Like I said I’m open to a conversation about it. But I’m not seeing how it’s a conspiracy here.

I hope there was an avenue for anybody to report corruption and troubling things they learn in our government whether they see it first hand or hear about it. Not saying hearsay should carry as much weight but as second hand but there should be the ability to voice concerns. Wouldn’t you agree?

Not when done to attack 1 person. Then it *is* personal.

Again, they do this to your father, you good still? Attack him for unverified heresy that 3 days prior was NOT legal? And if you are the expert on legality tell me wo changed it and by what process and ANY OTHER REASON than going after Trump.

You change a process to improve it. Not use it against someone. Put your damn hate down and open your eyes to what this alliows LONG AFTER trump is gone.

You call it an attack but it doesn’t sound like youve considered the other perspective. Like a staffer being exposed to actions by our president that appear corrupt and dangerous. You paint it like it’s all a political attack, but perhaps it’s a civil servant trying to protect their country from what they feel is an abuse of power. And following the legal procedure to voice those concerns... you seem to be making a point that this person should of had no avenue to express these concerns because they didn’t have first hand exposure. Is that right?

You call it unverified heresay but all the WB did was submit a report and it was up to the IG (a guy I’ve heard most republicans stand behind) to determine its credibility. And again, the bulk of this situation isn’t centered around the WB report it’s centered around trumps now public statements and a phone call, all first hand.

Bullshit.

Like I said, not much sense in discussing issues with someone ok with changing the rules along the way.

For example, you are OK with starting impeachment hearing over heresy evidence.

Next up is why this is OK and it's not. End of story.

Then call me a hypocrite and stop the discussion. I think I’ve made some valid points but it doesn’t sound like you care to hear them or refute them.

Just note you’ve resorted to a FEELZ argument by bringing in the loved one scenario.

 

[mudwhistle]

Come on, slade. You don't find it odd a month ago schiff tweeted about AL this?

That they changed whistleblower rules JUST BEFORE going after Trump?

To anyone without a dog in this race you'd scream SET UP..

I think there is a lot of over politicalization going on but cut through the BS, I think it’s pretty clear what Trump was trying to do with that phone call and with Gulianis trip to Ukraine. I think it is an abuse of his power. I don’t think it rises to impeachment as I’d rather see him voted out of office. The people knew he was a sleezy businessman and they voted him in. He should get called out on all his BS but the right way to exit is from a vote.

Cut through the BS both ways.

You only do it one way usually. If the Don changed rules to go after someone, how would that sit with you? If he tweeted a month ago about a topic then a month later went OH NOs, what would you do or think?

And if impeachment is an overreaction, can we focus on the actions, not the people?

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

So if you hear about something corrupt going on you don’t think there should be any way to report it? Really?

First of all....this report is obviously politically biased.
Second of all....this is clearly gossup.....thus the need for firsthand evidence.

If you are a nasty asshole that hates Republicans you can simply just make shit up on the president the way Adam Schiffforbrains did.....and that's pretty much what this complaint is.

But let's get down to brass tacks.....what gives these fuckers the right to decide what the president can discuss with foreign leaders????

 

[iceberg]

we get "heresay" info that due to protections in our system, is not allowed.
we change our system to allow it
we go after the president
you see nothing to be alarmed about. you NEVER see anything done to trump to be alarmed about HOWEVER if it were to happen to the left, i'm 99.999% sure you'd be livid, yet now that a protection in our system is bypassed for the sole reason of attacking the president, you're like "well it's just to review it..." HOWEVER they were in full impeach mode before even SEEING said evidence (publicly) and no one raises an eyebrow.

kavanaugh was "Just to review it"
russia was "just to review it"
trumps lunch - just to review it.

the event itself schiff tweeted about a MONTH ago. the whistleblower said he had dirt, trump released said "dirt" and now you're saying TRUMP released it all as if it's now HIS fault he's being brought up for impeachment before it's even "reviewed"

and you see nothing wrong here. all they have then slade is HERESAY evidence bound by the sheer fact they had to allow it just to look at it FOR THIS AND ONLY THIS PURPOSE. this is fishing and making up your own god damn catch of the day.

the left is off in impeachment AGAIN over heresay and you're ok with this shit. our government is morphing in front of our eyes and every protection and separation of power we've ever known is tossed aside and you "see nothing of significant" note.

what is being done today is wrong and being done for the sole reason to attack a political opponent and you just don't give a flying horse shit. at this point there is zero to discuss with you because EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING the left does that is bypassing our checks and balances is simply NOT significant to you.

cause...trump.

how fucked up a country do you really want to have that is so emotionally unstable you'll talk yourself into such bullshit?

just for grins, what law did the president break in that conversation? please cite it and how he broke it.

Uhh no that’s not at all what I said. I actually said that it was a valid question. I didn’t say there was nothing there. But I didn’t point out that the controversy is more about they actual phone call than they heresay whistleblower report so I do t see how this factors in in a significant way.

Also a system wasn’t bypassed, it appears to have been legally changed. Perhaps it was changed because the whistlerblower had something to say and no avenue to voice his/her concerns, I don’t know. Like I said I’m open to a conversation about it. But I’m not seeing how it’s a conspiracy here.

I hope there was an avenue for anybody to report corruption and troubling things they learn in our government whether they see it first hand or hear about it. Not saying hearsay should carry as much weight but as second hand but there should be the ability to voice concerns. Wouldn’t you agree?

Not when done to attack 1 person. Then it *is* personal.

Again, they do this to your father, you good still? Attack him for unverified heresy that 3 days prior was NOT legal? And if you are the expert on legality tell me wo changed it and by what process and ANY OTHER REASON than going after Trump.

You change a process to improve it. Not use it against someone. Put your damn hate down and open your eyes to what this alliows LONG AFTER trump is gone.

You call it an attack but it doesn’t sound like youve considered the other perspective. Like a staffer being exposed to actions by our president that appear corrupt and dangerous. You paint it like it’s all a political attack, but perhaps it’s a civil servant trying to protect their country from what they feel is an abuse of power. And following the legal procedure to voice those concerns... you seem to be making a point that this person should of had no avenue to express these concerns because they didn’t have first hand exposure. Is that right?

You call it unverified heresay but all the WB did was submit a report and it was up to the IG (a guy I’ve heard most republicans stand behind) to determine its credibility. And again, the bulk of this situation isn’t centered around the WB report it’s centered around trumps now public statements and a phone call, all first hand.

Bullshit.

Like I said, not much sense in discussing issues with someone ok with changing the rules along the way.

For example, you are OK with starting impeachment hearing over heresy evidence.

Next up is why this is OK and it's not. End of story.

Then call me a hypocrite and stop the discussion. I think I’ve made some valid points but it doesn’t sound like you care to hear them or refute them.

Just note you’ve resorted to a FEELZ argument by bringing in the loved one scenario.

Cause thats the only way to make you understand and put aside your hate of Trump.

But OK we will do it your way.

Fucking hypocrite.

 

[Slade3200]

Cut through the BS both ways.

You only do it one way usually. If the Don changed rules to go after someone, how would that sit with you? If he tweeted a month ago about a topic then a month later went OH NOs, what would you do or think?

And if impeachment is an overreaction, can we focus on the actions, not the people?

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

But he FEELZ Trump is sleeze so this is ok.

This only means I can change our laws and processes at will so I can go after 1 person.

What would we call other countries doing this?

Slade, if they did this to someone you love, still OK or do you call foul?

If somebody initiated an unjust attack on somebody I loved then of course I’d be upset and push back. If I somebody I love broke a law and got called out then I’d stand in their corner but they probably deserve to be held accountable.

You left out changing the laws along the way so the CAN attack.

Wonder why.

And what law did Trump break again?

He is mainly being accused of breaking 52 US code 30121 and also a few others. Judge Napolitano thought it was pretty obvious while on Fox a few days ago. It’s not just a TDS talking point.

Judge Napolitano: Trump has admitted committing crime in talks with Ukraine

 

[Slade3200]

I think there is a lot of over politicalization going on but cut through the BS, I think it’s pretty clear what Trump was trying to do with that phone call and with Gulianis trip to Ukraine. I think it is an abuse of his power. I don’t think it rises to impeachment as I’d rather see him voted out of office. The people knew he was a sleezy businessman and they voted him in. He should get called out on all his BS but the right way to exit is from a vote.

Cut through the BS both ways.

You only do it one way usually. If the Don changed rules to go after someone, how would that sit with you? If he tweeted a month ago about a topic then a month later went OH NOs, what would you do or think?

And if impeachment is an overreaction, can we focus on the actions, not the people?

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

So if you hear about something corrupt going on you don’t think there should be any way to report it? Really?

First of all....this report is obviously politically biased.
Second of all....this is clearly gossup.....thus the need for firsthand evidence.

If you are a nasty asshole that hates Republicans you can simply just make shit up on the president the way Adam Schiffforbrains did.....and that's pretty much what this complaint is.

But let's get down to brass tacks.....what gives these fuckers the right to decide what the president can discuss with foreign leaders????

The report is public because Trump released it. The report was validated by the IG as stated by the head of DNI when he said the IG found it credible and of urgent concern. He also said the whistleblower did the right thing. These are all Trump people, not a Dem involved in anything I just said.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

But he FEELZ Trump is sleeze so this is ok.

This only means I can change our laws and processes at will so I can go after 1 person.

What would we call other countries doing this?

Slade, if they did this to someone you love, still OK or do you call foul?

If somebody initiated an unjust attack on somebody I loved then of course I’d be upset and push back. If I somebody I love broke a law and got called out then I’d stand in their corner but they probably deserve to be held accountable.

You left out changing the laws along the way so the CAN attack.

Wonder why.

And what law did Trump break again?

He is mainly being accused of breaking 52 US code 30121 and also a few others. Judge Napolitano thought it was pretty obvious while on Fox a few days ago. It’s not just a TDS talking point.

Judge Napolitano: Trump has admitted committing crime in talks with Ukraine

Judge Napolitano is full of shit. He's a Never-Trumper working for the Deep State.

September 28, 2019
Judge Napolitano's Descent into Foolishness
By Daniel John Sobieski
Consistent with Fox News Channel's continued listing to port, which I wrote about in my July 31, 2019 American Thinker article "Fox Veers Left," Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, once a staunch defender of objective truth, has provoked a firestorm with his agreement with Democratic clown car passenger Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) that President Trump committed a crime in his July 25 phone conversation with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky. As Fox News reported:

Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News host Shepard Smith on Tuesday that the president effectively confessed to a crime when he admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Napolitano, a Fox News senior judicial analyst, had framed President Trump's earlier statement as an admission that he tried to "solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."

"So that to which the president has admitted is in and of itself a crime," Smith followed. Napolitano responded, "yes," and claimed it was the same crime former Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated as part of the long-running Russia investigation.

Napolitano's comments constituted as much of a parody of the truth as the fable spun by House Intelligence Committee chairman Schiff's recent interrogation of acting director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire over the transcript of the call, which suggests nothing of the sort. Zelensky himself said he was not "pushed" by Trump into investigating the corruption of the Bidens. So there was no quid pro quo, no bribe of a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 election as reported by a "whistleblower" who was not a member of the Intelligence Community and had no firsthand knowledge of the call. What was Napolitano talking about?

That is what prominent Washington, D.C. Republican attorney and Fox News guest Joseph diGenova wanted to know when he was a guest on Tucker Carlson Tonight on September 25:

CARLSON: Joe diGenova is a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal prosecutor and he joins us tonight. Joe, thanks so much for coming on.

JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: You bet.

CARLSON: So it's hard with a story this political to get to the basic legal questions here. So to what the president did or said he did in this conversation with the head of state of Ukraine. Now, I heard to the effect on our air, I heard Judge Andrew Napolitano say that what the president has admitted to doing is a crime. Quote, "it is a crime." Is it a crime? You're a former federal prosecutor.

DIGENOVA: Well, I think Judge Napolitano is a fool. And I think what he said today is foolish. No, it is not a crime. Let me underscore emphatically that nothing that the president said on that call or what we think he said on that call constitutes a crime. And even if he had said, you're not going to get the money, it would not be a crime.

That has sparked somewhat of a feud between Carlson and Fox News host Shepard Smith, and probably between diGenova and Napolitano. It's not the first time Napolitano has done a mind melt with the Deep State swamp creatures, insisting earlier that despite the failure of the Mueller probe to show it, President Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice in the Russiagate investigation. This goofy claim was roundly debunked and repudiated by none other than legal scholar and Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz. As reported by Real Clear Politics:

In an interview cited by the president on Twitter, legal scholar Alan Dershowitz makes the case for why FOX News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano is wrong when he says the Mueller report demonstrates that President Trump committed obstruction of justice[.] ...

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that is obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then–White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that's obstruction of justice. When the president asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony that's obstruction of justice[.] ... But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable.

FOX NEWS HOST: Do you agree? Is this obstruction of justice?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I do not agree. I think Judge Napolitano is terrific and we often agree about the law, but in my introduction to the Mueller report, I go through the elements of obstruction of justice. The act itself has to be illegal. It can't be an act that is authorized under Article Two of the Constitution.

And it would help if there was actually a crime being investigated. What was the crime committed by Trump that was being investigated by Robert Mueller? There was none, and the whole Mueller investigation may have been triggered by a real crime: the fraud committed on the FISA Court by Obama's DOJ and FBI.

Time was when Napolitano was as suspicious as the rest of us about the Deep State coup and the Obama administration's role in it. As Peter Barry Chowka notes in his excellent piece on the Smith-Carlson feud, something changed Judge Napolitano:

When I wrote about the first public skirmishes in this internal Fox News war in March 2018, Smith — a consistent critic of President Trump — was critical of Napolitano for defending the 45th POTUS. More recently, Napolitano has shifted ground and can be counted on to sound more like a CNN or MSNBC commentator when the subject of Donald Trump comes up.

I have an idea what triggered Napolitano's attitude change. His defense of Donald Trump's claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by the Obama administration got him fired. Fox took him off the air and suspended him for saying what we all know now to be the case: that even friendly governments were used to set Trump up. Upon his return, perhaps as part of a deal, he began to sing a different tune, agreeing with the likes of Robert Mueller and his "pit bull," Andrew Weissmann.

.............Trump and Trump Tower were being wiretapped and surveilled on President Obama'a orders, if not by the British. Certainly, the British have resisted the declassification of all documents related to FISA abuse by Obama's FBI and DOJ, lest their role in Russiagate be exposed. And let us not forget that former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, namesake of the infamous Steele dossier, was a British agent. As the Daily Caller reported:

Top British spy officials are resisting a push by Republicans to declassify FBI documents related to the Russia investigation, according to a Telegraph report.

Officials with MI6, Britain's equivalent to the CIA, have warned the Trump White House that releasing the documents could hinder intelligence gathering operations, The Telegraph reported.

Trump said he is "very seriously" declassifying a slew of FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) documents that would shed light on the origins of the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

The MI6 opposition also raises the possibility that British officials are concerned the sought-after documents contain information that could be embarrassing to the British government.

Alan Dershowitz and Joe diGenova are right. Judge Napolitano has gone over to the dark side of the Force and is currently sailing on the liberal ship of fools captained by Adam Schiff.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/judge_napolitanos_descent_into_foolishnes.html​

 

[Slade3200]

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

But he FEELZ Trump is sleeze so this is ok.

This only means I can change our laws and processes at will so I can go after 1 person.

What would we call other countries doing this?

Slade, if they did this to someone you love, still OK or do you call foul?

If somebody initiated an unjust attack on somebody I loved then of course I’d be upset and push back. If I somebody I love broke a law and got called out then I’d stand in their corner but they probably deserve to be held accountable.

You left out changing the laws along the way so the CAN attack.

Wonder why.

And what law did Trump break again?

He is mainly being accused of breaking 52 US code 30121 and also a few others. Judge Napolitano thought it was pretty obvious while on Fox a few days ago. It’s not just a TDS talking point.

Judge Napolitano: Trump has admitted committing crime in talks with Ukraine

Judge Napolitano is full of shit. He's a Never-Trumper working for the Deep State.

September 28, 2019
Judge Napolitano's Descent into Foolishness
By Daniel John Sobieski
Consistent with Fox News Channel's continued listing to port, which I wrote about in my July 31, 2019 American Thinker article "Fox Veers Left," Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, once a staunch defender of objective truth, has provoked a firestorm with his agreement with Democratic clown car passenger Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) that President Trump committed a crime in his July 25 phone conversation with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky. As Fox News reported:

Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News host Shepard Smith on Tuesday that the president effectively confessed to a crime when he admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Napolitano, a Fox News senior judicial analyst, had framed President Trump's earlier statement as an admission that he tried to "solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."

"So that to which the president has admitted is in and of itself a crime," Smith followed. Napolitano responded, "yes," and claimed it was the same crime former Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated as part of the long-running Russia investigation.

Napolitano's comments constituted as much of a parody of the truth as the fable spun by House Intelligence Committee chairman Schiff's recent interrogation of acting director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire over the transcript of the call, which suggests nothing of the sort. Zelensky himself said he was not "pushed" by Trump into investigating the corruption of the Bidens. So there was no quid pro quo, no bribe of a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 election as reported by a "whistleblower" who was not a member of the Intelligence Community and had no firsthand knowledge of the call. What was Napolitano talking about?

That is what prominent Washington, D.C. Republican attorney and Fox News guest Joseph diGenova wanted to know when he was a guest on Tucker Carlson Tonight on September 25:

CARLSON: Joe diGenova is a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal prosecutor and he joins us tonight. Joe, thanks so much for coming on.

JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: You bet.

CARLSON: So it's hard with a story this political to get to the basic legal questions here. So to what the president did or said he did in this conversation with the head of state of Ukraine. Now, I heard to the effect on our air, I heard Judge Andrew Napolitano say that what the president has admitted to doing is a crime. Quote, "it is a crime." Is it a crime? You're a former federal prosecutor.

DIGENOVA: Well, I think Judge Napolitano is a fool. And I think what he said today is foolish. No, it is not a crime. Let me underscore emphatically that nothing that the president said on that call or what we think he said on that call constitutes a crime. And even if he had said, you're not going to get the money, it would not be a crime.

That has sparked somewhat of a feud between Carlson and Fox News host Shepard Smith, and probably between diGenova and Napolitano. It's not the first time Napolitano has done a mind melt with the Deep State swamp creatures, insisting earlier that despite the failure of the Mueller probe to show it, President Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice in the Russiagate investigation. This goofy claim was roundly debunked and repudiated by none other than legal scholar and Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz. As reported by Real Clear Politics:

In an interview cited by the president on Twitter, legal scholar Alan Dershowitz makes the case for why FOX News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano is wrong when he says the Mueller report demonstrates that President Trump committed obstruction of justice[.] ...

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that is obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then–White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that's obstruction of justice. When the president asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony that's obstruction of justice[.] ... But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable.

FOX NEWS HOST: Do you agree? Is this obstruction of justice?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I do not agree. I think Judge Napolitano is terrific and we often agree about the law, but in my introduction to the Mueller report, I go through the elements of obstruction of justice. The act itself has to be illegal. It can't be an act that is authorized under Article Two of the Constitution.

And it would help if there was actually a crime being investigated. What was the crime committed by Trump that was being investigated by Robert Mueller? There was none, and the whole Mueller investigation may have been triggered by a real crime: the fraud committed on the FISA Court by Obama's DOJ and FBI.

Time was when Napolitano was as suspicious as the rest of us about the Deep State coup and the Obama administration's role in it. As Peter Barry Chowka notes in his excellent piece on the Smith-Carlson feud, something changed Judge Napolitano:

When I wrote about the first public skirmishes in this internal Fox News war in March 2018, Smith — a consistent critic of President Trump — was critical of Napolitano for defending the 45th POTUS. More recently, Napolitano has shifted ground and can be counted on to sound more like a CNN or MSNBC commentator when the subject of Donald Trump comes up.

I have an idea what triggered Napolitano's attitude change. His defense of Donald Trump's claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by the Obama administration got him fired. Fox took him off the air and suspended him for saying what we all know now to be the case: that even friendly governments were used to set Trump up. Upon his return, perhaps as part of a deal, he began to sing a different tune, agreeing with the likes of Robert Mueller and his "pit bull," Andrew Weissmann.

.............Trump and Trump Tower were being wiretapped and surveilled on President Obama'a orders, if not by the British. Certainly, the British have resisted the declassification of all documents related to FISA abuse by Obama's FBI and DOJ, lest their role in Russiagate be exposed. And let us not forget that former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, namesake of the infamous Steele dossier, was a British agent. As the Daily Caller reported:

Top British spy officials are resisting a push by Republicans to declassify FBI documents related to the Russia investigation, according to a Telegraph report.

Officials with MI6, Britain's equivalent to the CIA, have warned the Trump White House that releasing the documents could hinder intelligence gathering operations, The Telegraph reported.

Trump said he is "very seriously" declassifying a slew of FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) documents that would shed light on the origins of the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

The MI6 opposition also raises the possibility that British officials are concerned the sought-after documents contain information that could be embarrassing to the British government.

Alan Dershowitz and Joe diGenova are right. Judge Napolitano has gone over to the dark side of the Force and is currently sailing on the liberal ship of fools captained by Adam Schiff.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/judge_napolitanos_descent_into_foolishnes.html​

That’s hilarious. So The Judge gets in trouble for defending trump about the wire tap claims and gets suspended as a result so his response to that it’s to be a never trumper?! That’s your logic? Hahaha.

How about the possibility that he is just being honest and calling it like he sees it. He does have a reputation and knows he will need to defend the things he says. You really think he is just making shit up?

I know that’s the default counter punch to anybody that goes after Trump but come on. Live in reality for once.

 

[iceberg]

I think there is a lot of over politicalization going on but cut through the BS, I think it’s pretty clear what Trump was trying to do with that phone call and with Gulianis trip to Ukraine. I think it is an abuse of his power. I don’t think it rises to impeachment as I’d rather see him voted out of office. The people knew he was a sleezy businessman and they voted him in. He should get called out on all his BS but the right way to exit is from a vote.

Cut through the BS both ways.

You only do it one way usually. If the Don changed rules to go after someone, how would that sit with you? If he tweeted a month ago about a topic then a month later went OH NOs, what would you do or think?

And if impeachment is an overreaction, can we focus on the actions, not the people?

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

So if you hear about something corrupt going on you don’t think there should be any way to report it? Really?

First of all....this report is obviously politically biased.
Second of all....this is clearly gossup.....thus the need for firsthand evidence.

If you are a nasty asshole that hates Republicans you can simply just make shit up on the president the way Adam Schiffforbrains did.....and that's pretty much what this complaint is.

But let's get down to brass tacks.....what gives these fuckers the right to decide what the president can discuss with foreign leaders????

To allow Hillary to delete 33k mail, he had to give her every benefit of doubt. I said bullshit but do the same when you hate someone.

Epic
Fail

 

[Slade3200]

Cut through the BS both ways.

You only do it one way usually. If the Don changed rules to go after someone, how would that sit with you? If he tweeted a month ago about a topic then a month later went OH NOs, what would you do or think?

And if impeachment is an overreaction, can we focus on the actions, not the people?

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

So if you hear about something corrupt going on you don’t think there should be any way to report it? Really?

First of all....this report is obviously politically biased.
Second of all....this is clearly gossup.....thus the need for firsthand evidence.

If you are a nasty asshole that hates Republicans you can simply just make shit up on the president the way Adam Schiffforbrains did.....and that's pretty much what this complaint is.

But let's get down to brass tacks.....what gives these fuckers the right to decide what the president can discuss with foreign leaders????

To allow Hillary to delete 33k mail, he had to give her every benefit of doubt. I said bullshit but do the same when you hate someone.

Epic
Fail

Now we are back to Hillary?! Come on Ice... you’re melting down. Pull it together.

 

[Tiggs]

Bottom line is no laws were broken because Nancy hasnt been able to cite a single one. There have been members of Congress from Democrats asking Ukraine to investigate Trump and one member asking Ukraine not to investigate Biden. The whole thing is a fucking charade.

 

[mudwhistle]

But he FEELZ Trump is sleeze so this is ok.

This only means I can change our laws and processes at will so I can go after 1 person.

What would we call other countries doing this?

Slade, if they did this to someone you love, still OK or do you call foul?

If somebody initiated an unjust attack on somebody I loved then of course I’d be upset and push back. If I somebody I love broke a law and got called out then I’d stand in their corner but they probably deserve to be held accountable.

You left out changing the laws along the way so the CAN attack.

Wonder why.

And what law did Trump break again?

He is mainly being accused of breaking 52 US code 30121 and also a few others. Judge Napolitano thought it was pretty obvious while on Fox a few days ago. It’s not just a TDS talking point.

Judge Napolitano: Trump has admitted committing crime in talks with Ukraine

Judge Napolitano is full of shit. He's a Never-Trumper working for the Deep State.

September 28, 2019
Judge Napolitano's Descent into Foolishness
By Daniel John Sobieski
Consistent with Fox News Channel's continued listing to port, which I wrote about in my July 31, 2019 American Thinker article "Fox Veers Left," Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, once a staunch defender of objective truth, has provoked a firestorm with his agreement with Democratic clown car passenger Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) that President Trump committed a crime in his July 25 phone conversation with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky. As Fox News reported:

Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News host Shepard Smith on Tuesday that the president effectively confessed to a crime when he admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Napolitano, a Fox News senior judicial analyst, had framed President Trump's earlier statement as an admission that he tried to "solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."

"So that to which the president has admitted is in and of itself a crime," Smith followed. Napolitano responded, "yes," and claimed it was the same crime former Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated as part of the long-running Russia investigation.

Napolitano's comments constituted as much of a parody of the truth as the fable spun by House Intelligence Committee chairman Schiff's recent interrogation of acting director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire over the transcript of the call, which suggests nothing of the sort. Zelensky himself said he was not "pushed" by Trump into investigating the corruption of the Bidens. So there was no quid pro quo, no bribe of a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 election as reported by a "whistleblower" who was not a member of the Intelligence Community and had no firsthand knowledge of the call. What was Napolitano talking about?

That is what prominent Washington, D.C. Republican attorney and Fox News guest Joseph diGenova wanted to know when he was a guest on Tucker Carlson Tonight on September 25:

CARLSON: Joe diGenova is a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal prosecutor and he joins us tonight. Joe, thanks so much for coming on.

JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: You bet.

CARLSON: So it's hard with a story this political to get to the basic legal questions here. So to what the president did or said he did in this conversation with the head of state of Ukraine. Now, I heard to the effect on our air, I heard Judge Andrew Napolitano say that what the president has admitted to doing is a crime. Quote, "it is a crime." Is it a crime? You're a former federal prosecutor.

DIGENOVA: Well, I think Judge Napolitano is a fool. And I think what he said today is foolish. No, it is not a crime. Let me underscore emphatically that nothing that the president said on that call or what we think he said on that call constitutes a crime. And even if he had said, you're not going to get the money, it would not be a crime.

That has sparked somewhat of a feud between Carlson and Fox News host Shepard Smith, and probably between diGenova and Napolitano. It's not the first time Napolitano has done a mind melt with the Deep State swamp creatures, insisting earlier that despite the failure of the Mueller probe to show it, President Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice in the Russiagate investigation. This goofy claim was roundly debunked and repudiated by none other than legal scholar and Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz. As reported by Real Clear Politics:

In an interview cited by the president on Twitter, legal scholar Alan Dershowitz makes the case for why FOX News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano is wrong when he says the Mueller report demonstrates that President Trump committed obstruction of justice[.] ...

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that is obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then–White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that's obstruction of justice. When the president asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony that's obstruction of justice[.] ... But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable.

FOX NEWS HOST: Do you agree? Is this obstruction of justice?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I do not agree. I think Judge Napolitano is terrific and we often agree about the law, but in my introduction to the Mueller report, I go through the elements of obstruction of justice. The act itself has to be illegal. It can't be an act that is authorized under Article Two of the Constitution.

And it would help if there was actually a crime being investigated. What was the crime committed by Trump that was being investigated by Robert Mueller? There was none, and the whole Mueller investigation may have been triggered by a real crime: the fraud committed on the FISA Court by Obama's DOJ and FBI.

Time was when Napolitano was as suspicious as the rest of us about the Deep State coup and the Obama administration's role in it. As Peter Barry Chowka notes in his excellent piece on the Smith-Carlson feud, something changed Judge Napolitano:

When I wrote about the first public skirmishes in this internal Fox News war in March 2018, Smith — a consistent critic of President Trump — was critical of Napolitano for defending the 45th POTUS. More recently, Napolitano has shifted ground and can be counted on to sound more like a CNN or MSNBC commentator when the subject of Donald Trump comes up.

I have an idea what triggered Napolitano's attitude change. His defense of Donald Trump's claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by the Obama administration got him fired. Fox took him off the air and suspended him for saying what we all know now to be the case: that even friendly governments were used to set Trump up. Upon his return, perhaps as part of a deal, he began to sing a different tune, agreeing with the likes of Robert Mueller and his "pit bull," Andrew Weissmann.

.............Trump and Trump Tower were being wiretapped and surveilled on President Obama'a orders, if not by the British. Certainly, the British have resisted the declassification of all documents related to FISA abuse by Obama's FBI and DOJ, lest their role in Russiagate be exposed. And let us not forget that former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, namesake of the infamous Steele dossier, was a British agent. As the Daily Caller reported:

Top British spy officials are resisting a push by Republicans to declassify FBI documents related to the Russia investigation, according to a Telegraph report.

Officials with MI6, Britain's equivalent to the CIA, have warned the Trump White House that releasing the documents could hinder intelligence gathering operations, The Telegraph reported.

Trump said he is "very seriously" declassifying a slew of FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) documents that would shed light on the origins of the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

The MI6 opposition also raises the possibility that British officials are concerned the sought-after documents contain information that could be embarrassing to the British government.

Alan Dershowitz and Joe diGenova are right. Judge Napolitano has gone over to the dark side of the Force and is currently sailing on the liberal ship of fools captained by Adam Schiff.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/judge_napolitanos_descent_into_foolishnes.html​

That’s hilarious. So The Judge gets in trouble for defending trump about the wire tap claims and gets suspended as a result so his response to that it’s to be a never trumper?! That’s your logic? Hahaha.

How about the possibility that he is just being honest and calling it like he sees it. He does have a reputation and knows he will need to defend the things he says. You really think he is just making shit up?

I know that’s the default counter punch to anybody that goes after Trump but come on. Live in reality for once.

Obviously your warped mind cannot think logically.
The purpose for the judge was to give them legal advise that supported their programming.
The judge used to be a Trump supporter.....and being on Fox is a good paying gig. So they suspend him because they want to revert to being Anti-Trump....and only let him come back if he supports their clandestine Trump-bashing.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

So if you hear about something corrupt going on you don’t think there should be any way to report it? Really?

First of all....this report is obviously politically biased.
Second of all....this is clearly gossup.....thus the need for firsthand evidence.

If you are a nasty asshole that hates Republicans you can simply just make shit up on the president the way Adam Schiffforbrains did.....and that's pretty much what this complaint is.

But let's get down to brass tacks.....what gives these fuckers the right to decide what the president can discuss with foreign leaders????

To allow Hillary to delete 33k mail, he had to give her every benefit of doubt. I said bullshit but do the same when you hate someone.

Epic
Fail

Now we are back to Hillary?! Come on Ice... you’re melting down. Pull it together.

Hillary pops up again to give a speech when they hold this Kangaroo court hearing.....this doesn't happen by accident.
They've been planning this shit with her.
She always gets in front of the cameras with a ridiculous already prepared speech when they're ambushing Trump.

She's behind it......

 

[iceberg]

This is the first I’m hearing about changing whistlerblower rules. Can you explain a little more about that?

Used to be you had to witness wrongdoing.
Now all you need is gossup and rumors.

So if you hear about something corrupt going on you don’t think there should be any way to report it? Really?

First of all....this report is obviously politically biased.
Second of all....this is clearly gossup.....thus the need for firsthand evidence.

If you are a nasty asshole that hates Republicans you can simply just make shit up on the president the way Adam Schiffforbrains did.....and that's pretty much what this complaint is.

But let's get down to brass tacks.....what gives these fuckers the right to decide what the president can discuss with foreign leaders????

To allow Hillary to delete 33k mail, he had to give her every benefit of doubt. I said bullshit but do the same when you hate someone.

Epic
Fail

Now we are back to Hillary?! Come on Ice... you’re melting down. Pull it together.

Likei said then, just be as forgiving when you hate.

Epic
Fail

Fucking hypocrite. I said then you couldn't do it. Ding ding ding I was dead on.

 

[Slade3200]

If somebody initiated an unjust attack on somebody I loved then of course I’d be upset and push back. If I somebody I love broke a law and got called out then I’d stand in their corner but they probably deserve to be held accountable.

You left out changing the laws along the way so the CAN attack.

Wonder why.

And what law did Trump break again?

He is mainly being accused of breaking 52 US code 30121 and also a few others. Judge Napolitano thought it was pretty obvious while on Fox a few days ago. It’s not just a TDS talking point.

Judge Napolitano: Trump has admitted committing crime in talks with Ukraine

Judge Napolitano is full of shit. He's a Never-Trumper working for the Deep State.

September 28, 2019
Judge Napolitano's Descent into Foolishness
By Daniel John Sobieski
Consistent with Fox News Channel's continued listing to port, which I wrote about in my July 31, 2019 American Thinker article "Fox Veers Left," Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, once a staunch defender of objective truth, has provoked a firestorm with his agreement with Democratic clown car passenger Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) that President Trump committed a crime in his July 25 phone conversation with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky. As Fox News reported:

Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News host Shepard Smith on Tuesday that the president effectively confessed to a crime when he admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Napolitano, a Fox News senior judicial analyst, had framed President Trump's earlier statement as an admission that he tried to "solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."

"So that to which the president has admitted is in and of itself a crime," Smith followed. Napolitano responded, "yes," and claimed it was the same crime former Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated as part of the long-running Russia investigation.

Napolitano's comments constituted as much of a parody of the truth as the fable spun by House Intelligence Committee chairman Schiff's recent interrogation of acting director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire over the transcript of the call, which suggests nothing of the sort. Zelensky himself said he was not "pushed" by Trump into investigating the corruption of the Bidens. So there was no quid pro quo, no bribe of a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 election as reported by a "whistleblower" who was not a member of the Intelligence Community and had no firsthand knowledge of the call. What was Napolitano talking about?

That is what prominent Washington, D.C. Republican attorney and Fox News guest Joseph diGenova wanted to know when he was a guest on Tucker Carlson Tonight on September 25:

CARLSON: Joe diGenova is a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal prosecutor and he joins us tonight. Joe, thanks so much for coming on.

JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: You bet.

CARLSON: So it's hard with a story this political to get to the basic legal questions here. So to what the president did or said he did in this conversation with the head of state of Ukraine. Now, I heard to the effect on our air, I heard Judge Andrew Napolitano say that what the president has admitted to doing is a crime. Quote, "it is a crime." Is it a crime? You're a former federal prosecutor.

DIGENOVA: Well, I think Judge Napolitano is a fool. And I think what he said today is foolish. No, it is not a crime. Let me underscore emphatically that nothing that the president said on that call or what we think he said on that call constitutes a crime. And even if he had said, you're not going to get the money, it would not be a crime.

That has sparked somewhat of a feud between Carlson and Fox News host Shepard Smith, and probably between diGenova and Napolitano. It's not the first time Napolitano has done a mind melt with the Deep State swamp creatures, insisting earlier that despite the failure of the Mueller probe to show it, President Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice in the Russiagate investigation. This goofy claim was roundly debunked and repudiated by none other than legal scholar and Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz. As reported by Real Clear Politics:

In an interview cited by the president on Twitter, legal scholar Alan Dershowitz makes the case for why FOX News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano is wrong when he says the Mueller report demonstrates that President Trump committed obstruction of justice[.] ...

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that is obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then–White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that's obstruction of justice. When the president asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony that's obstruction of justice[.] ... But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable.

FOX NEWS HOST: Do you agree? Is this obstruction of justice?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I do not agree. I think Judge Napolitano is terrific and we often agree about the law, but in my introduction to the Mueller report, I go through the elements of obstruction of justice. The act itself has to be illegal. It can't be an act that is authorized under Article Two of the Constitution.

And it would help if there was actually a crime being investigated. What was the crime committed by Trump that was being investigated by Robert Mueller? There was none, and the whole Mueller investigation may have been triggered by a real crime: the fraud committed on the FISA Court by Obama's DOJ and FBI.

Time was when Napolitano was as suspicious as the rest of us about the Deep State coup and the Obama administration's role in it. As Peter Barry Chowka notes in his excellent piece on the Smith-Carlson feud, something changed Judge Napolitano:

When I wrote about the first public skirmishes in this internal Fox News war in March 2018, Smith — a consistent critic of President Trump — was critical of Napolitano for defending the 45th POTUS. More recently, Napolitano has shifted ground and can be counted on to sound more like a CNN or MSNBC commentator when the subject of Donald Trump comes up.

I have an idea what triggered Napolitano's attitude change. His defense of Donald Trump's claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by the Obama administration got him fired. Fox took him off the air and suspended him for saying what we all know now to be the case: that even friendly governments were used to set Trump up. Upon his return, perhaps as part of a deal, he began to sing a different tune, agreeing with the likes of Robert Mueller and his "pit bull," Andrew Weissmann.

.............Trump and Trump Tower were being wiretapped and surveilled on President Obama'a orders, if not by the British. Certainly, the British have resisted the declassification of all documents related to FISA abuse by Obama's FBI and DOJ, lest their role in Russiagate be exposed. And let us not forget that former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, namesake of the infamous Steele dossier, was a British agent. As the Daily Caller reported:

Top British spy officials are resisting a push by Republicans to declassify FBI documents related to the Russia investigation, according to a Telegraph report.

Officials with MI6, Britain's equivalent to the CIA, have warned the Trump White House that releasing the documents could hinder intelligence gathering operations, The Telegraph reported.

Trump said he is "very seriously" declassifying a slew of FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) documents that would shed light on the origins of the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

The MI6 opposition also raises the possibility that British officials are concerned the sought-after documents contain information that could be embarrassing to the British government.

Alan Dershowitz and Joe diGenova are right. Judge Napolitano has gone over to the dark side of the Force and is currently sailing on the liberal ship of fools captained by Adam Schiff.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/judge_napolitanos_descent_into_foolishnes.html​

That’s hilarious. So The Judge gets in trouble for defending trump about the wire tap claims and gets suspended as a result so his response to that it’s to be a never trumper?! That’s your logic? Hahaha.

How about the possibility that he is just being honest and calling it like he sees it. He does have a reputation and knows he will need to defend the things he says. You really think he is just making shit up?

I know that’s the default counter punch to anybody that goes after Trump but come on. Live in reality for once.

Obviously your warped mind cannot think logically.
The purpose for the judge was to give them legal advise that supported their programming.
The judge used to be a Trump supporter.....and being on Fox is a good paying gig. So they suspend him because they want to revert to being Anti-Trump....and only let him come back if he supports their clandestine Trump-bashing.

That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in a while, you have zero evidence to support that, it’s all conspiracy smoke.