Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hey dumbass, never been a Hillary supporter and never had a problem with any of the innumerable dead-end investigations republicans have launched into her activities over the years. If you don't have confidence that your leaders can withstand any amount of scrutiny then you probably need better leaders.I respect the law as it applies to our leaders and find it much too lenient as it is.
Bullshit. Hillary committed innumerable felonies and you couldn't stop licking her snatch.
Such nonsense. He literally said no prosecutor worth a fuck (paraphrasing) would recommend charges or prosecute. You're making up stories.James Comey seemed to think she did. He just refused to prosecute her.
I can't believe this is where you goobers still are. It's like being reunited a guy you graduated high school with 10 years ago, and he's still living with his mom and delivering papers. Grow up you fools...
It's less facetious than Adam Schiff who belongs in a straight jacket.Saying, for example, "I am going to kill the whistleblower" is still a death threat. Glad I could clear that up for you.
The House impeaches, not just the Democrats, dumbass!
True, and the Democrats are in charge in the house. If republicans just hadn't changed the rules to block out the minority party during all those Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi hearings, they would have subpoena ability now. Can you say "OH SHIT!!' ?
You are so full of shit! Why do you lie when it is so easily disproved?
You think the repubs didn't change the rules that are now blocking them from having subpoena power in the committees?
That was not the change. The rule change allowed committee chairman to issue subpoenas without the consent of the minority party, which was a result of the Obama administration stonewalling valid requests for documents. The Dems are only allowing committee chairman to issue subpoenas, under those new rules. The rules also allow for the ranking member and others in the minority to request subpoenas. The chairmen are ignoring them, and that is what is being done under the Dems. That cuts out the ability for the minority party in an impeachment inquiry to produce exculpatory evidence by testimony from individuals the Dems really don't want to have testify. It ruins their kangaroo court!
The rules change gave committee chairmen complete control of subpoena power. The ranking members requested subpoenas in the Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi investigations too----- those requests were ignored. Again. Trump will have his day in court ----- in the Senate trial
Hey dumbass, never been a Hillary supporter and never had a problem with any of the innumerable dead-end investigations republicans have launched into her activities over the years. If you don't have confidence that your leaders can withstand any amount of scrutiny then you probably need better leaders.I respect the law as it applies to our leaders and find it much too lenient as it is.
Bullshit. Hillary committed innumerable felonies and you couldn't stop licking her snatch.
So,in other words, Sekukow has no idea what the second whistleblower has, but the transcript is out, therefore it's nothing.
But the first whistle blower had a lot more interesting info than just the content of that call. So Sekulow's logic is nonexistent...and therefore perfect fodder for the FOX sheep...
Moral authority has its place. Right now, the Democrat Party has in recent years engaged Party Operatives into intimidating Trump and his staff, and character assassination doesn't get worse than that.There's this thing called "character assassination". You cannot deny that an army of right wing operatives would dig deep into this persons life looking for anything to discredit them. This person and their family do not deserve to be raked over the coals for no other reason than for the right to cloud the issue and intimidate a witness.Saying, for example, "I am going to kill the whistleblower" is still a death threat. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Of course, but we were told the person could testify from a remote location due to the fear for his life (remember the Kavanaugh Hearing and the same M.O?). So, if someone had the means to do harm to someone, how would they do it? Just randomly pick some unfortunate guy in D.C and do something and hope he (or she) is the Whistleblower? Is the Whistleblower hiding in some bunker somewhere?
The assumption is that he would be in harm at his home not at work unless a co-worker lost his shyte. If nobody knows who he is, who would the threat be addressed to, and/or carried out?
The Democrat operatives are waiting in line to get in on the "whistleblower" list, because they're pretty certain there was no whistleblower, and that they can now step up to the plate with a more distinguished-sounding lie that will get batted about from net to net with the sundry player Democrat press toadies, waiting to be praised as the latest "victim."You will one day have your chance to smear the whistle blower from coast to coast on TV and subject them to your towering rage but not yet. This person is allegedly an intelligence officer with a top security clearance. They are certainly clean enough to work the White House and have been judged to be credible by a Trump appointee and are entitled to protection as yet.There's this thing called "character assassination". You cannot deny that an army of right wing operatives would dig deep into this persons life looking for anything to discredit them. This person and their family do not deserve to be raked over the coals for no other reason than for the right to cloud the issue and intimidate a witness.Saying, for example, "I am going to kill the whistleblower" is still a death threat. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Of course, but we were told the person could testify from a remote location due to the fear for his life (remember the Kavanaugh Hearing and the same M.O?). So, if someone had the means to do harm to someone, how would they do it? Just randomly pick some unfortunate guy in D.C and do something and hope he (or she) is the Whistleblower? Is the Whistleblower hiding in some bunker somewhere?
The assumption is that he would be in harm at his home not at work unless a co-worker lost his shyte. If nobody knows who he is, who would the threat be addressed to, and/or carried out?
Well, without scrutiny you are in fact supporting the very issue you are concerned about, but, this is an attack on a duly elected President! He cannot defend himself, people cannot ask questions and motivations because, well, the secret accuser must remain so?
In effect, the President, his supporters and the ability of his government to do their job for the people is impaired and harmed by what is, at this point, a groundless accusation.
In politics or in a courtroom, we can't operate on the "Honor System" where any allegation is accepted as fact. He needs to come out and stand by his allegation in the open. Of course he will be scrutinized, it's politics and he could simply be a political plant or hyper partisan. Just as in the Kavanaugh Hearing, motivate will be and should be flushed out.
True, and the Democrats are in charge in the house. If republicans just hadn't changed the rules to block out the minority party during all those Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi hearings, they would have subpoena ability now. Can you say "OH SHIT!!' ?
You are so full of shit! Why do you lie when it is so easily disproved?
You think the repubs didn't change the rules that are now blocking them from having subpoena power in the committees?
That was not the change. The rule change allowed committee chairman to issue subpoenas without the consent of the minority party, which was a result of the Obama administration stonewalling valid requests for documents. The Dems are only allowing committee chairman to issue subpoenas, under those new rules. The rules also allow for the ranking member and others in the minority to request subpoenas. The chairmen are ignoring them, and that is what is being done under the Dems. That cuts out the ability for the minority party in an impeachment inquiry to produce exculpatory evidence by testimony from individuals the Dems really don't want to have testify. It ruins their kangaroo court!
The rules change gave committee chairmen complete control of subpoena power. The ranking members requested subpoenas in the Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi investigations too----- those requests were ignored. Again. Trump will have his day in court ----- in the Senate trial
Who the fuck would they subpoena? Billy, the kid who delivers newspapers to the neighborhood they live in? That is the kind of bullshit delay tactics the Dems were using.
If they didn't like the rules, why didn't they change them back? Uh, oh! I just destroyed your pathetic argument AGAIN!
What a dumbass you continue to prove yourself to be!
Because CNN is lying.I heard this more than once, on CNN and I think in an interview by someone. I just want to know, how is this possible when he is not even known?
You keep making that charge but you're wrong. After the Bill Clinton thing where democrats were forced into defending his infidelity I made the decision that I would never do it again. Investigating everyone in office for everything every time is the only way to get rid of corruption. Been saying this for years. Now say something different because you bore me.Hey dumbass, never been a Hillary supporter and never had a problem with any of the innumerable dead-end investigations republicans have launched into her activities over the years. If you don't have confidence that your leaders can withstand any amount of scrutiny then you probably need better leaders.I respect the law as it applies to our leaders and find it much too lenient as it is.
Bullshit. Hillary committed innumerable felonies and you couldn't stop licking her snatch.
Hey shit-for-brains, you don't have a problem with crime and corruption, as long as they have that "D" for "Dick" by their name, shit-for-brains.
Investigating everyone in office for everything every time is the only way to get rid of corruption. Been saying this for years. Now say something different because you bore me.
Of course there's a whistleblower. Trump's ICIG investigated and found the allegations credible. What kind of garbage are you listening to?The Democrat operatives are waiting in line to get in on the "whistleblower" list, because they're pretty certain there was no whistleblower, and that they can now step up to the plate with a more distinguished-sounding lie that will get batted about from net to net with the sundry player Democrat press toadies, waiting to be praised as the latest "victim."You will one day have your chance to smear the whistle blower from coast to coast on TV and subject them to your towering rage but not yet. This person is allegedly an intelligence officer with a top security clearance. They are certainly clean enough to work the White House and have been judged to be credible by a Trump appointee and are entitled to protection as yet.There's this thing called "character assassination". You cannot deny that an army of right wing operatives would dig deep into this persons life looking for anything to discredit them. This person and their family do not deserve to be raked over the coals for no other reason than for the right to cloud the issue and intimidate a witness.Saying, for example, "I am going to kill the whistleblower" is still a death threat. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Of course, but we were told the person could testify from a remote location due to the fear for his life (remember the Kavanaugh Hearing and the same M.O?). So, if someone had the means to do harm to someone, how would they do it? Just randomly pick some unfortunate guy in D.C and do something and hope he (or she) is the Whistleblower? Is the Whistleblower hiding in some bunker somewhere?
The assumption is that he would be in harm at his home not at work unless a co-worker lost his shyte. If nobody knows who he is, who would the threat be addressed to, and/or carried out?
Well, without scrutiny you are in fact supporting the very issue you are concerned about, but, this is an attack on a duly elected President! He cannot defend himself, people cannot ask questions and motivations because, well, the secret accuser must remain so?
In effect, the President, his supporters and the ability of his government to do their job for the people is impaired and harmed by what is, at this point, a groundless accusation.
In politics or in a courtroom, we can't operate on the "Honor System" where any allegation is accepted as fact. He needs to come out and stand by his allegation in the open. Of course he will be scrutinized, it's politics and he could simply be a political plant or hyper partisan. Just as in the Kavanaugh Hearing, motivate will be and should be flushed out.
Of course there's a whistleblower. Trump's ICIG investigated and found the allegations credible. What kind of garbage are you listening to?
Blame Trump. He's in no way an innocent victim of the system. He tried to rig the system to his advantage. He tried to make it even more corrupt. He may have come into this not a politician but he's one now whether he likes it or not and he stinks at it. You pinned your hopes on a bad bet, we all have at times, cut your loses and move on. Be the first of many republicans that will disavow supporting him in the future.Investigating everyone in office for everything every time is the only way to get rid of corruption. Been saying this for years. Now say something different because you bore me.
Ok. I agree with you.
I say, investigate ALL of them and their spouses, children, etc. so that the people can be confident that you as an elected representative aren't selling your votes. If all of them were investigate and if ALL the truth came out, the amount of crime and corruption found would be staggering.
Trump is the first non-politician elected to the White House since Ike. I doubt anyone else will be stupid enough to repeat his mistake.
Blame Trump. He's in no way an innocent victim of the system. He tried to rig the system to his advantage. He tried to make it even more corrupt. He may have come into this not a politician but he's one now whether he likes it or not and he stinks at it. You pinned your hopes on a bad bet, we all have at times, cut your loses and move on. Be the first of many republicans that will disavow supporting him in the future.
[He tried to rig the system...
Trump's ICIG investigated and found the allegations credible.
Well, Madonna said blow up the White House. Kathy Griffin held a severed head of Trump. Those things actually happened. Unlike your "basically" useless assumption.Trump has basically issued death threats to whistleblowers.
And the right wing shit a brick when that happened. You don't remember the weeks of outrage?
Outrage, and the consequences to these people uttering terror threats against the President were...*drum roll please*...
