That 2019 impeachment

[Marener]

Already have several times. You're trying to make this about the validity of the call. As I already pointed out, that's not the case.

“It’s explained in the article” isn’t the explanation you think it is.

You won’t really talk about the actual issue, perhaps you don’t really understand it.

 

[Marener]

How can it be accurate if the information was secondhand? Do you think Trump should be able to get to the impeachment expunged?

Why can’t second hand information be accurate?

That makes no sense.

 

[Delldude]

Why can’t second hand information be accurate?

That's not the issue, once again.

Actually it's second and third hand information.

Hearsay?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Dershowitz brought it up. Wouldn't it be nice for the dems to be exposed for eternity for the jack leg crap they pulled?

Dershowitz needs to review his Constitution. They can do that without overturning their impeachment vote. That would be unconstitutional.

 

[Delldude]

Dershowitz needs to review his Constitution.

Not how he brought it up. It's in the OP.

 

[Alweysrite!]

Why can’t second hand information be accurate?

That makes no sense.

Second hand information , Not admissible in a court of law because of lack of accuracy. It's called hearsay. If you think about it it makes total sense. Do you think Trump should be exonerated for the faked, drummed up impeachment?

 

[Marener]

That's not the issue, once again.

Actually it's second and third hand information.

Hearsay?

Once again, you refuse to tell us what you think the issue is. Because the article cited makes it sound like being second hand information is a huge issue.

 

[Marener]

Second hand information , Not admissible in a court of law because of lack of accuracy. It's called hearsay. If you think about it it makes total sense. Do you think Trump should be exonerated for the faked, drummed up impeachment?

They didn’t admit the information into court. They used it as a basis for further investigation.

Huge difference.

 

[Delldude]

Once again, you refuse to tell us what you think the issue is. Because the article cited makes it sound like being second hand information is a huge issue.

That's not real the issue.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Not how he brought it up. It's in the OP.

How do you expunge a vote in Congress?

 

[Delldude]

How do you expunge a vote in Congress?

BTSOOM.

 

[The Duke]

Who honestly gives a shit about an impeachment? He was not convicted by the Senate. No one ever has been. That is like saying that when you are found not guilty for murder and set free, that they should indict the people who indicted you? It's just another political circle jerk and the American people are the pivot man! We should, as the Dems used to say, move on!

Yeah, who the feck cares millions of dollars are wasted by Congress on impeachments
instead of them using that time and money to represent their constituents and you know, actually do their jobs and make their states better?

Kick yourself dead in the ass for me.

 

[Marener]

That's not real the issue.

Apparently there is no real issue, given your constant refrain is to deny anything is an issue.

Maybe you should have read the articles.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah, who the feck cares millions of dollars are wasted by Congress on impeachments
instead of them using that time and money to represent their constituents and you know, actually do their jobs and make their states better?

Kick yourself dead in the ass for me.

So you want to waste millions more? The Beatles said it best when they sang, "Let it be!"

What do you hope to accomplish? Dems voters won't give a shit because they suffer from TDS.

 

[Delldude]

Apparently there is no real issue, given your constant refrain is to deny anything is an issue.

Maybe you should have read the articles.

 

[Alweysrite!]

They didn’t admit the information into court. They used it as a basis for further investigation.

Huge difference.

They used the information to impeach a man. It was faulty information, very dishonest. Do you think they should nullify the impeachment because of this dishonesty that was displayed? They have brayed about and paraded the impeachment since it happened, are you proud that you tried to Sully a good man's reputation with faulty testimony? Thou shalt not bear false Witness

 

[TNHarley]

You do not know that he was cleared?

No he wasnt. The accuser backed out because he sued her. Thats why the rest of the victims wont name names.

 

[Marener]

Not sure what you’re whining about.

Just because the whistleblower was a democrat, doesn’t mean you ignore the complaint.

You still investigate.

 

[Marener]

They used the information to impeach a man. It was faulty information, very dishonest. Do you think they should nullify the impeachment because of this dishonesty that was displayed? They have brayed about and paraded the impeachment since it happened, are you proud that you tried to Sully a good man's reputation with faulty testimony? Thou shalt not bear false Witness

The whistleblower prompted an investigation and the information from the investigation was used to impeach him.

It’s a huge difference.

 

[Delldude]

Just because the whistleblower was a democrat, doesn’t mean you ignore the complaint.

More details, click 'show more'.

First Trump Impeachment

Whistleblower Motive

Whistleblower met with Democrats on House Intelligence Committee (then led by Adam Schiff) BEFORE reporting his allegations to the Intelligence Community Inspector General.
__________
Ratcliffe: The whistleblower did not disclose to you that he or she had contact with HPSCI (House Intelligence Committee)?

Atkinson: The answer to that is yes. The answer to that is yes.

Atkinson: On the urgent disclosure form, there's a question that the complainant is asked about who they have reported the violation to...and one of the boxes is the congressional intelligence committees. The complainant did not check that box.