Rand Paul Unleashes LIVE On Senate Floor – Names Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella 5 Times

[buckeye45_73]

The ****** is a "whistleblower" in the sense that "whistle" = "stiff c*ck"

Here's the message: You're not going to take down a sitting president and thwart the will of 63 million voters while hiding behind your blankie.

The message was well delivered by Rand Paul and hopefully the c*ckblower will continue to have uncontrolled, ill-timed bowel evacuations until it is locked up with its own kind for treason/sedition.

Did 63 million voters vote to allow Trump to extort foreign governments in return for personal favors?

extortion is not one of the impeachment charges. If the House wasn't ready to impeach, they should have held off with their vote. We know they only wanted to extend the circus into the Senate proceedings. Good for the Republicans not allowing them to play their games.

The only game is being plated by republicans. This trial has been a pathetic show by republicans. They have shown the nation how they willing to cover up the corruption of a president just as long as he's from their own party.

You need to open your eyes, blind partisan rage does not suit you

 

[imawhosure]

Well that isn't what the IG thinks, I tend to go with their assessment especially since they have all the first hand material.

If the IG considers him a whistleblower (which I didn't see any evidence of) then he's part of the conspiracy, and should be removed immediately. Because the article clearly states that only a person with first hand information can be a whistleblower.

That makes no sense.

It's all part of a "vast conspiracy" - and everyone who doesn't walk in step becomes part of it.

The IG outlined what they found - and I see no reason to doubt it that he had direct knowledge (which the IG seems to consider the same as first hand) of at least some of what he reported and that was all that was required.

All of this really distracts from what was in the report and what has been corroborated as factual.

So what you're saying is that if it is a conspiracy, just move along? Nothing to see here folks. And what if this was happening to Obama by the Republicans? You know, keeping these people secret, not allowing factual witnesses that would prove the conspiracy to testify, hiding their previous testimony, you would be just fine with forgetting about all that?

I am not much of a believer in vast conspiracies - the more complicated, the more involved, the more unlikely it is to be kept secret.

If a whistle blower reported this same stuff on Obama - I would be angry and disgusted, and disappointed at Obama. The report was corroborated, the testimony pretty damning. I would want to hear from any witness' directly involved as well, under oath.

I don't care who the president is - it is an abuse of power to strong-arm a nation into finding political dirt on a personal opponent. It is not in our national interest. Where we used to draw lines, suddenly - what lines. It's all ok I guess.

I really don't and wouldn't care WHO the whistle blower (other than simple curiosity) because protecting whistleblowers, while at the same time insuring there is a process to prove their claims are credible enough to go forward, is important. And - it used have strong bipartisan support.

Really? So why didn't I see you here when DumBama held back documents subpoenaed by the Republican Congress during Fast and Furious? Not a word out of you that I can recall. I don't remember you saying that he should be impeached for obstruction of justice. I don't recall you demanding Hillary's removal from the race after it was discovered that she and the DNC paid a foreign ex-agent to get material from the Russian government for dirt on Trump. I don't recall you taking a stance on anything going on under Obama. You were just dandy with that.

Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.

I think you are spinning it from pretty thin thread.

I don't know of many - maybe not any - whistle blowers from the Intellegence community that have come out front and center by choice. Can you think of any?

I think it's risky on many fronts both to them, to their jobs, and to their families. That's a big reason why there is confidentiality. Trump is also well known for retaliation.

And - again - there is still the matter of what he reported, the actual facts of the case.

We've been over the facts of the case in a hundred threads. Trump asked Zelensky for a favor, that favor was not contingent on US aid, and the aid was released by Trump before it was even due to be released. There was no quid pro quo because Trump never got anything before or after releasing the aid. And Biden was not his rival because nobody knew who his rival would be.

As far as this whistleblower stuff goes, you just want to sweep that under the rug.

That's opinion - your interpretation (and yes, my opinion is my interpretation) - but there was a clear attempt to withhold aid, approved by Congress to pressure Ukraine into ANNOUNCING an investigation. Biden was and is his strongest rival. Everyone knew he was going to run and would likely poll strongest against Trump AND most of the other likely candidates are much further left. It's silly and disingenuous to think otherwise, so don't insult me with that.

You and I both know politics (on both sides) is full of dirt. This is just one example.

What I say is not interpretation, it's definition of words.

favor
[ fey-ver ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR favor ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
something done or granted out of goodwill, rather than from justice or for remuneration; a kind act: to ask a favor.

Definition of favor | Dictionary.com

See what I'm talking about? Actual words and definitions.

Now if you challenge me, then please show me in the call where Trump told Zelensky the aid was based on his cooperation. You can't show me that because Trump never said it. It's your "interpretation" of what you heard, not actual words. And it's not even your interpretation, it's what the commies told you theirs was.

We can play semantics all you want but you and I both know what "favor" means when the requestor is powerful, and is withholding something you need. We both know what "favor" means in politics. So don't play these games - it disengenius.

A very wrong thing to do.

He doesn't qualify as a WB under the law, read the dam law.

.

This thread goes round and round, up and down. Fascinating how the Left wants to hear from Bolton, even though if Trump did exactly what they say he did, it is NOT impeachable. And yet, they fight so hard to STOP the whistle-e-phony from saying a word.

Why?

Everyone knows why, it is just the Leftists on here don't want to admit it, so use a narrative as cover.

Still----------->for BOTH sides, let me point out that you don't need an impeachment inquiry to look into said "whistleblower." Nope, nope! You only need an impeachment inquiry to look into the President. Funny how that works, lol. And we now know; or so they proclaim, they are going to investigate Mr Whistleblower, which really means Mr Shiff, AKA the Democrats!

Now, are they going to follow through with this investigation? You can place your bets on either side of this issue, but one thing is more than obvious---------->if they do, it won't take long, AND unless the Left is 100% correct that Shiff and company are as pure as the wind driven snow, the Democratic leaders have done the virtual impossible...………..managed to LINK themselves to the Obama Administrations actions on Trump as a CONTINUATION!

And, there is no way they can side step that factoid, when some of these people actually worked for Shiff! If they actually investigate, the Left has just sunk to neck deep in the muck, and are on the verge of going under without an oxygen bottle.

As far as the Left putting their favorite refrain on this post, "any day now," let me be the 1st to tall you that any day now is somewhere between today, and August 15th, lol. Unlike past Republican Administrations, this one seems to know EXACTLY what to do, politically anyway; so much so, even you on the Left have become aware of it. Sooooooo, enjoy your ability to deflect and subvert with talking points TODAY, because on day in the very near future, your going to have to change your own story, and that is going to be the end of your 2020 dreams-)

 

[Cellblock2429]

A very wrong thing to do.

/——/ Why? It’s not illegal.

 

[Cellblock2429]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

/—-/ Why do you want to expand the WB Act to include anonymity? No DemocRAT has ever proposed that before.

 

[playtime]

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

The IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here because that reads like you are backing up my/rays claim, if so please allow me time to re-evaluate my position.

What claim exactly do you think it backs up?

It outlines the process (the article at the link) - the whistle blower's role and the IG's role. The IG's responsibility is to confirm whether or not it's credible by verifying and, if needed getting first hand accounts if the whistle blower provided second hand accounts.

If the IG can not confirm credibility, the complaint is not sent up, that is all.

The whistle blower is NOT required to provide first hand info.

In this case it was deemed credible.

You do realize the rules were changed after the fact to allow only second hand knowledge, right?

i showed you in the report where you are wrong on that. the same rule was followed that was in place since 2018.

 

[playtime]

What are you Trumptards going to do when Bolton starts talking? Or his book come out? Blame Schiff? Lol!

Nobody is stopping him from talking. He can talk all he wants now. He can do interviews, write op-eds, whatever he wants.

trump is still trying to stop it ray ray. yer prez wants to silence & censor those that speak out against him. that's full tilt fascism & goes di-rectly against the 1st amendment of the us constitution.

White House seeks to block publication of Bolton's book
By Brett Samuels - 01/29/20 01:11 PM EST
White House seeks to block publication of Bolton's book

donny is claiming that bolton may leak classified info.. LOL!!!! john bolton has been around for decades, going back as far as reagan & was NSA for christ's sake. he knows what he could & could not divulge. your mango mussolini is scared shitless of what is gonna come out.

 

[playtime]

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

The IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here because that reads like you are backing up my/rays claim, if so please allow me time to re-evaluate my position.

What claim exactly do you think it backs up?

It outlines the process (the article at the link) - the whistle blower's role and the IG's role. The IG's responsibility is to confirm whether or not it's credible by verifying and, if needed getting first hand accounts if the whistle blower provided second hand accounts.

If the IG can not confirm credibility, the complaint is not sent up, that is all.

The whistle blower is NOT required to provide first hand info.

In this case it was deemed credible.

You do realize the rules were changed after the fact to allow only second hand knowledge, right?

No. They didn’t. The form changed.

show me the exact rule change.

The form changed?

All by itself, no doubt.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

 

[Dale Smith]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

No one prosecuted and punished whistleblowers more than the Barrypuppet.

 

[playtime]

There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.

lol...from your link:

In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge]

The good news is that ray owes you a great big thank you

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

The IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

Yes it does. Again, page two, first paragraph:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

So what this says is that yes, he could file a complaint, but just not as an actual whistleblower.

But according to the IG, the whistleblower had clear, first hand knowledge. Both were checked off in the report. So he did file the complaint as a whistleblower.

The source provided by Playtime didn't say that. What it described are the two boxes, but didn't elaborate to say both were checked off. After all, you can only check one or the other. It stated the informant had direct knowledge, but didn't use the words first hand information.

According to all reports, the rat got his information from somebody else; second hand information. Therefore one of two things took place here. Either all reporting on the rat are incorrect, and he did have first hand information, or he didn't have first hand information, and lied on the application.

The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

page 2.

 

[playtime]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

No one prosecuted and punished whistleblowers more than the Barrypuppet.

really who? but i sure remember when cheney outed valerie plame.

 

[Cellblock2429]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

No one prosecuted and punished whistleblowers more than the Barrypuppet.

really who? but i sure remember when cheney outed valerie plume.

/—-/ Cheney didn’t, her husband did.

 

[playtime]

Yes it does. Again, page two, first paragraph:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second- hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

So what this says is that yes, he could file a complaint, but just not as an actual whistleblower.

But according to the IG, the whistleblower had clear, first hand knowledge. Both were checked off in the report. So he did file the complaint as a whistleblower.

The source provided by Playtime didn't say that. What it described are the two boxes, but didn't elaborate to say both were checked off. After all, you can only check one or the other. It stated the informant had direct knowledge, but didn't use the words first hand information.

According to all reports, the rat got his information from somebody else; second hand information. Therefore one of two things took place here. Either all reporting on the rat are incorrect, and he did have first hand information, or he didn't have first hand information, and lied on the application.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”

As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.

Now it makes even less sense. How can you have first hand and second hand information? You either have one or the other. If you have first hand information, then second hand information is something you already had.

I think the Republicans should go after this whistleblower after this is all over to find out WTF is going on. Because it's making less and less sense as we go through this.

You can easily have both if it's a complex report.

Why should they go after him? Political vendetta for exposing this?

they are loyal to a man & not the constituion. ray ray even used the thug term donny did & called him a rat.

 

[Dale Smith]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

No one prosecuted and punished whistleblowers more than the Barrypuppet.

really who? but i sure remember when cheney outed valerie plame.

Not exactly a rightwing slanted site.........

Where Was the Love for Whistleblowers During the Obama Administration? | RealClearPolitics

 

[playtime]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

No one prosecuted and punished whistleblowers more than the Barrypuppet.

really who? but i sure remember when cheney outed valerie plume.

/—-/ Cheney didn’t, her husband did.

it wasn't dick , or scooter, or her husband. actually it was a dude named armitage.

On July 8, Armitage told columnist Robert Novak that Wilson’s wife worked for CIA on weapons of mass destruction and suggested her husband for the mission. “I’m afraid I may be the guy who caused this whole thing,” Armitage later told a colleague. “I may have been the leaker. I talked to Novak.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...claim-that-scooter-libby-leaked-her-identity/

 

[playtime]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

No one prosecuted and punished whistleblowers more than the Barrypuppet.

really who? but i sure remember when cheney outed valerie plame.

Not exactly a rightwing slanted site.........

Where Was the Love for Whistleblowers During the Obama Administration? | RealClearPolitics

so are you saying outing this dude is ok, cause obama did the same thing & so did W.'s administration?

 

[playtime]

You can easily have both if it's a complex report.

Why should they go after him? Political vendetta for exposing this?

This is about the phone call only. You either heard the phone call yourself of you didn't. I'm sure he didn't listen to part of the call and walk out of the room.

If he had legal access to a transcript of the phone call that is direct evidence sufficient to warrant looking into.

Seriously - this is ridiculous. You are essentially saying if you came across an official recording or memo that detailed something that seemed wrong, you couldn't report it because you weren't there when the memo was created? I've never heard such parsing before when it comes to whistle blowers. We have a system in place to check and verify - it met each of the requirements. You keep ignoring that.

You and Playtime keep telling me that, and I keep responding this has nothing to do whether he could file it or not, it's what it was filed under. In other words, an intelligence agency agent can file a complaint and not be the person with first hand information. Therefore that person is not actually a whistleblower, they are an informant, and therefore, not covered under any specific protections or regulations.

Well the IG specified he met the requirements. I see no reason for him to say otherwise when it could be easily disproved.

The IG is the one who changed the requirements.

But YOU claimed he had FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE, and that it was confirmed.

What is it? Be specific.

you are specifically wrong.

 

[playtime]

Subject him to harm is pure speculation. Other whistleblowers have come out front and center in the past, and nothing happened to them. What's really happening is that this is a plot, and this guy is part of their club. They can't allow him to testify because it would prove that Schiff was in on the entire thing. That's why the 18th witness (which you avoid talking about) was also not part of the clown show, and his testimony in the basement hearings is not allowed to be disclosed.

I think you are spinning it from pretty thin thread.

I don't know of many - maybe not any - whistle blowers from the Intellegence community that have come out front and center by choice. Can you think of any?

I think it's risky on many fronts both to them, to their jobs, and to their families. That's a big reason why there is confidentiality. Trump is also well known for retaliation.

And - again - there is still the matter of what he reported, the actual facts of the case.

We've been over the facts of the case in a hundred threads. Trump asked Zelensky for a favor, that favor was not contingent on US aid, and the aid was released by Trump before it was even due to be released. There was no quid pro quo because Trump never got anything before or after releasing the aid. And Biden was not his rival because nobody knew who his rival would be.

As far as this whistleblower stuff goes, you just want to sweep that under the rug.

That's opinion - your interpretation (and yes, my opinion is my interpretation) - but there was a clear attempt to withhold aid, approved by Congress to pressure Ukraine into ANNOUNCING an investigation. Biden was and is his strongest rival. Everyone knew he was going to run and would likely poll strongest against Trump AND most of the other likely candidates are much further left. It's silly and disingenuous to think otherwise, so don't insult me with that.

You and I both know politics (on both sides) is full of dirt. This is just one example.

What I say is not interpretation, it's definition of words.

favor
[ fey-ver ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR favor ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
something done or granted out of goodwill, rather than from justice or for remuneration; a kind act: to ask a favor.

Definition of favor | Dictionary.com

See what I'm talking about? Actual words and definitions.

Now if you challenge me, then please show me in the call where Trump told Zelensky the aid was based on his cooperation. You can't show me that because Trump never said it. It's your "interpretation" of what you heard, not actual words. And it's not even your interpretation, it's what the commies told you theirs was.

We can play semantics all you want but you and I both know what "favor" means when the requestor is powerful, and is withholding something you need. We both know what "favor" means in politics. So don't play these games - it disengenius.

michael cohen also testified that donny always uses phrases & says things indirectly - but you know 'exactly' what he means.

 

[playtime]

I think you are spinning it from pretty thin thread.

I don't know of many - maybe not any - whistle blowers from the Intellegence community that have come out front and center by choice. Can you think of any?

I think it's risky on many fronts both to them, to their jobs, and to their families. That's a big reason why there is confidentiality. Trump is also well known for retaliation.

And - again - there is still the matter of what he reported, the actual facts of the case.

We've been over the facts of the case in a hundred threads. Trump asked Zelensky for a favor, that favor was not contingent on US aid, and the aid was released by Trump before it was even due to be released. There was no quid pro quo because Trump never got anything before or after releasing the aid. And Biden was not his rival because nobody knew who his rival would be.

As far as this whistleblower stuff goes, you just want to sweep that under the rug.

That's opinion - your interpretation (and yes, my opinion is my interpretation) - but there was a clear attempt to withhold aid, approved by Congress to pressure Ukraine into ANNOUNCING an investigation. Biden was and is his strongest rival. Everyone knew he was going to run and would likely poll strongest against Trump AND most of the other likely candidates are much further left. It's silly and disingenuous to think otherwise, so don't insult me with that.

You and I both know politics (on both sides) is full of dirt. This is just one example.

What I say is not interpretation, it's definition of words.

favor
[ fey-ver ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR favor ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
something done or granted out of goodwill, rather than from justice or for remuneration; a kind act: to ask a favor.

Definition of favor | Dictionary.com

See what I'm talking about? Actual words and definitions.

Now if you challenge me, then please show me in the call where Trump told Zelensky the aid was based on his cooperation. You can't show me that because Trump never said it. It's your "interpretation" of what you heard, not actual words. And it's not even your interpretation, it's what the commies told you theirs was.

We can play semantics all you want but you and I both know what "favor" means when the requestor is powerful, and is withholding something you need. We both know what "favor" means in politics. So don't play these games - it disengenius.

I do know what favor means. I posted the definition and my source.

Riddle me this: If the commies thought Trump was threatening Zelensky with the aid, why didn't they wait until he actually did it? Why didn't they wait until Zelensky came through with the "favors" Trump wanted before he released the aid? It would have made a much more solid case, don't you think?

The truth is after listening to that phone call, it was clear to them Trump would never do such a thing. So instead, use mind reading as an excuse to impeach him.

once that 'announcement' was made - biden would have been sunk - - done dirty & unfairly. the genie would have been outa the bottle & there would have been no going back.

 

[Dale Smith]

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

No one prosecuted and punished whistleblowers more than the Barrypuppet.

really who? but i sure remember when cheney outed valerie plame.

Not exactly a rightwing slanted site.........

Where Was the Love for Whistleblowers During the Obama Administration? | RealClearPolitics

so are you saying outing this dude is ok, cause obama did the same thing & so did W.'s administration?

Being that he is CIA and awfully chummy with members of the past admin that spied on Trump's campaign? I would say that it's significant. It's not like he is facing charges or being persecuted.

 

[playtime]

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

No one prosecuted and punished whistleblowers more than the Barrypuppet.

really who? but i sure remember when cheney outed valerie plame.

Not exactly a rightwing slanted site.........

Where Was the Love for Whistleblowers During the Obama Administration? | RealClearPolitics

so are you saying outing this dude is ok, cause obama did the same thing & so did W.'s administration?

Being that he is CIA and awfully chummy with members of the past admin that spied on Trump's campaign? I would say that it's significant. It's not like he is facing charges or being persecuted.