That 2019 impeachment

[Delldude]

Does the law require the whistleblower to have first hand information or not?

You don't read what you post?

Looks like what Tulsi has said is correct...............you clowns are toast.

At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the IC IG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the following language:

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 of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.)

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrong doing 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

 

[Robert W]

Trump is the authoritarian. He’s using the government to after anyone he doesn’t like, especially those who reveal his corruption to the American people.

Prosecuting whistleblowers is the kind of thing authoritarians do to keep the people in the dark.

Democrats went after Trump for over 9 years and for a fact still want to overthrow the government. We the public won't allow that.

 

[Alweysrite!]

There is record of it.

The IG, who is not politically biased, did not agree with the conclusion from the Trump biased lawyer, based on their massaged facts. They decided this based on upon their own investigation.

You demand that we accept the decision of the DoJ, even though they're very politically biased. Why is that?

Because you wanted there to be a cover up.

There's a wealth of information out there for you to ignore. You should be getting good at that by now marener

New Documents Reveal Democrats' Plot To Frame Trump With Ukraine Call

There was never a genuine complaint. It wasn’t an opportunistic hit job either. It was something far more deliberate, a coordinated effort.

thefederalist.com

 

[Marener]

Atkinson, on his own, changed the form from requiring having first hand knowledge to not.

Was that IAW with the law?

Did he change the form or did he change the “policy” and why don’t you care what the law says and so obsessed with the “policy”?

 

[Marener]

You don't read what you post?

Looks like what Tulsi has said is correct...............you clowns are toast.

At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the IC IG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the following language:

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 of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.)

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrong doing 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

You know what is missing from this post?

The law.

 

[Marener]

Democrats went after Trump for over 9 years and for a fact still want to overthrow the government. We the public won't allow that.

What did you expect? Trump is a criminal.

Why don’t you want to allow criminals to be prosecuted?

Instead you want to pick on innocent people who just wanted the American people to know about Trump’s corruption.

This is part of the authoritarian playbook.

 

[Delldude]

You know what is missing from this post?

The law.

Yet it makes direct references to the sections of the law, from your own link......duh.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well one body did impeach him but the other equal body did not so there was no completed impeachment as required and merely an attempt.

Well.....

Technically you are incorrect.

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments … [but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3).

U.S. Senate: About Impeachment

www.senate.gov

President Trump was impeached twice by the House of Representatives but was acquitted twice in the Senate.

 

[Robert W]

What did you expect? Trump is a criminal.

Why don’t you want to allow criminals to be prosecuted?

Instead you want to pick on innocent people who just wanted the American people to know about Trump’s corruption.

This is part of the authoritarian playbook.

Trump was convicted of a nothing crime 2 years back. Obama worked hard in 2017 and later to overthrow the government.

 

[g5000]

I was thinking about this also. It's shown that Democrats broke laws to usurp a president's power and attempt to remove Him from office. Ilegal fraudulent accusations. Their findings should be reversed and Trump's impeachment removed.

Trump is on tape, moron. That's as "bombshell" as it gets.

 

[Delldude]

Trump is on tape, moron. That's as "bombshell" as it gets.

That's not the issue.

 

[Alweysrite!]

Trump is on tape, moron. That's as "bombshell" as it gets.

Totally misinterpreted. The criminal is your boy quid pro Biden

 

[BackAgain]

I agreed the 2019 impeachment was bogus but using Dershowitz to make the argument?

Makes one once again ask how it is the country has become this bad.

A very poor ^ but glaringly obvious use of the ad hominem fallacy and the fallacy of “killing the messenger.”

The only valid analysis would address what Dershowitz said and how well he either supported his position or how poorly he did so.