Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 63,977
- 27,020
- 2,173
Quite the nit-pick. Is that the best you can do?More details, click 'show more'.
It doesn't even prove anything. Where is the evidence that the person reported the violation to Congress?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quite the nit-pick. Is that the best you can do?More details, click 'show more'.
Ah, in congressional testimony provided in transcripts.It doesn't even prove anything. Where is the evidence that the person reported the violation to Congress?
I read the testimony. It doesn't include any evidence that he reported the violation to Congress.Ah, in congressional testimony provided in transcripts.
Violation or seditious conspiracy?
The information was specious and illegal. So you are wrong. Similar to the Russian collusion thing. You are wrong there too. Don't you get tired of being wrong?The whistleblower prompted an investigation and the information from the investigation was used to impeach him.
It’s a huge difference.
Nothing illegal about the information. You can call it specious if you want, but we know that it was accurate.The information was specious and illegal. So you are wrong. Similar to the Russian collusion thing. You are wrong there too. Don't you get tired of being wrong?
Actually it was secondhand and hearsay. You can't go by that. Similar to the Trump grabbing the wheel of the Beast. Did you believe that also? Why are you guys so dishonest? Is it that important to have power?Nothing illegal about the information. You can call it specious if you want, but we know that it was accurate.
You must have missed the part where Ratcliffe asked about the form.I read the testimony. It doesn't include any evidence that he reported the violation to Congress.
They didn't go by that. They did an investigation and found ample evidence to show the hearsay was accurate.Actually it was secondhand and hearsay. You can't go by that. Similar to the Trump grabbing the wheel of the Beast. Did you believe that also? Why are you guys so dishonest? Is it that important to have power?
All baloney.They didn't go by that. They did an investigation and found ample evidence to show the hearsay was accurate.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I heard Ratcliffe ask about the form. I did not hear Ratcliffe provide evidence that the whistleblower reported the violation to Congress.You must have missed the part where Ratcliffe asked about the form.
You're such a clown. You talk about me being a political hack.I heard Ratcliffe ask about the form. I did not hear Ratcliffe provide evidence that the whistleblower reported the violation to Congress.
You are a political hack, because you don't know what you're talking about and didn't read the testimony.You're such a clown. You talk about me being a political hack.
It was the person who replied to Ratcliffes question that supplied the evidence. He was Michael K. Atkinson, Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, in sworn testimony.
Seriously, someday you're going to wake up to see that your obstruction of this Administration is tantamount to being a traitor to the United States. We would be so much farther ahead if you hadn't have lied and cheated about Trump during his first term and even now it is really quite Unforgivable traitor . Stop lying and cheating. Hearsay evidence is actually against our constitutional way of life.They didn't go by that. They did an investigation and found ample evidence to show the hearsay was accurate.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Your problem is you've lost touch with reality.Seriously, someday you're going to wake up to see that your obstruction of this Administration is tantamount to being a traitor to the United States. We would be so much farther ahead if you hadn't have lied and cheated about Trump during his first term and even now it is really quite Unforgivable traitor . Stop lying and cheating. Hearsay evidence is actually against our constitutional way of life.
You are all of our problem. Go away and come back when you actually have an argument. You've lost this one as I've beaten you every time. You are always wrong.Your problem is you've lost touch with reality.
I’ve made my argument. All you’ve done is miss the point and whine incessantly.You are all of our problem. Go away and come back when you actually have an argument. You've lost this one as I've beaten you every time. You are always wrong.
LOL....you conveniently overlooked this two paragraphs prior to your 'evidence'.You are a political hack, because you don't know what you're talking about and didn't read the testimony.
Michael K Atkinson couldn't have provided that evidence because he had no idea about any contact between HPSCI and the whistleblower.
LOL....you conveniently overlooked this two paragraphs prior to your 'evidence'.
Atkinson admits he was aware of what wasn't put on the disclosure form. Admits WB did not notify him. Down the road, MSM caught on to Schiff being complicit before the WB complaint was filed, he denied it, WB had to run to the IG and rat himself out. It's in linked items previously.
View attachment 1244444
View attachment 1244443