(10-08-2019 10:17 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 07:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  They're not revealing his identity b/c he has a "professional relationship" with a 2020 Dem candidate, lol.

Yep...no bias there...

What happens if it turns out its someone on Biden's team. Wouldnt that be obstruction of justice?

https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/why-cant-d...l-clinton/

Basically they want secret meetings so they can leak false narratives and deny Republicans the right to question the witnesses. Its worse than a Kangaroo Court.


"...Pelosi’s Democrats are rushing to a final impeachment vote before Thanksgiving. They’re deposing witnesses behind closed doors and denying Republicans fair time to ask questions and the right to call their own witnesses — and won’t even release full interview transcripts.

Instead, they’re leaking negative info and withholding favorable facts — feeding fanatically anti-Trump media to repeat slanted interpretations as fact.

This is no constitutional effort to get at the full facts: It’s a rush to sell the public on a narrative of presidential wrongdoing.

The White House is entirely right to call out Pelosi’s game. And her only proper response is to treat her drive to impeach Trump the same way her Republican predecessors did their drive to impeach Clinton."

(10-09-2019 09:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 10:17 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 07:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  They're not revealing his identity b/c he has a "professional relationship" with a 2020 Dem candidate, lol.

Yep...no bias there...

What happens if it turns out its someone on Biden's team. Wouldnt that be obstruction of justice?

With all the attacks on Barr, Democrats are, by their standards, committing obstruction of justice.

(10-09-2019 11:14 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 09:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 10:17 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 07:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  They're not revealing his identity b/c he has a "professional relationship" with a 2020 Dem candidate, lol.

Yep...no bias there...

What happens if it turns out its someone on Biden's team. Wouldnt that be obstruction of justice?

With all the attacks on Barr, Democrats are, by their standards, committing obstruction of justice.

it's the obvious obfuscation...

disclaimer: I used that word before the media hyperbole....no differently than "witch hunt"...

the algorithm is in full effect....

(10-09-2019 06:50 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 03:38 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 03:36 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  #trumpbodycount

#cbbraincellcount

I'm currently estimating about 15.

That's being far too generous.

I'm a nice guy

So, it's gonna be James Comey in drag or something.

Can't make this schit up. Those internal polls must just be brutal.

(10-08-2019 07:24 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I would discount the testimony completely if they did this. You can't gauge a witnesses credibility if you can't see their face and hear the tone of their voice. You can't check for bias if you don't know who they are. It could literally be Hillary as the masked whistleblower lol. This person is not testifying against a drug cartel. No reason for such measures.

Except. The law.

Quote:The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was enacted to protect federal employees who disclose "Government illegality, waste, and corruption" from adverse consequences related to their employment. This act provides protection to whistleblowers that may receive demotions, pay cuts, or a replacement employee.

Remember when it didn't matter one iota how we found out about the crooked stuff on the DNC server, just that we did find it out?

Ah, those were the good 'ole days!

(10-09-2019 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Remember when it didn't matter one iota how we found out about the crooked stuff on the DNC server, just that we did find it out?

Ah, those were the good 'ole days!

Whataboutism is Tom's only defense these days...

(10-09-2019 02:39 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Remember when it didn't matter one iota how we found out about the crooked stuff on the DNC server, just that we did find it out?

Ah, those were the good 'ole days!

Whataboutism is Tom's only defense these days...

When everything bommerrangs on you that's pretty much all one has to fall back on. Well, that and the race card.

(10-09-2019 02:39 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Remember when it didn't matter one iota how we found out about the crooked stuff on the DNC server, just that we did find it out?

Ah, those were the good 'ole days!

Whataboutism is Tom's only defense these days...

And as usual, his whatabouts have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Democrats could have a vote on impeachment proceedings. They know they would either lose the vote or it would cost them the House. Plus actual impeachment proceedings would make them look like hypocritical idiots. So they want leaks to favored news organizations so they can control the narrative.

Openness terrifies the Dems. Its why they have tried to shut out Fox News. Its why they are trying to turn Google, Twitter and YouTube into DNC affiliates.

(10-09-2019 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 07:24 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I would discount the testimony completely if they did this. You can't gauge a witnesses credibility if you can't see their face and hear the tone of their voice. You can't check for bias if you don't know who they are. It could literally be Hillary as the masked whistleblower lol. This person is not testifying against a drug cartel. No reason for such measures.

Except. The law.

Quote:The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was enacted to protect federal employees who disclose "Government illegality, waste, and corruption" from adverse consequences related to their employment. This act provides protection to whistleblowers that may receive demotions, pay cuts, or a replacement employee.

The law protects them from retaliation, i.e. if they were fired or demoted they could sue etc. I see nothing in there that says they can make an allegation and never have to testify in open court. Or to remain anonymous in all court proceedings.

(10-09-2019 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Remember when it didn't matter one iota how we found out about the crooked stuff on the DNC server, just that we did find it out?

Ah, those were the good 'ole days!

There's one huge difference. The DNC did crooked things and it is not clear that DJT did anything wrong. No quid pro quo, Ukraine's prez said no pressure. DJT asking another country to look into possible criminal activity is not in and of itself wrong.

(10-09-2019 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 07:24 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I would discount the testimony completely if they did this. You can't gauge a witnesses credibility if you can't see their face and hear the tone of their voice. You can't check for bias if you don't know who they are. It could literally be Hillary as the masked whistleblower lol. This person is not testifying against a drug cartel. No reason for such measures.

Except. The law.

Quote:The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was enacted to protect federal employees who disclose "Government illegality, waste, and corruption" from adverse consequences related to their employment. This act provides protection to whistleblowers that may receive demotions, pay cuts, or a replacement employee.

Except that there's irrefutable proof that there was no illegality, waste, or corruption. So the only whistle they blew was a dog whistle to the stupid. And you heard it.

(10-09-2019 03:56 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 07:24 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I would discount the testimony completely if they did this. You can't gauge a witnesses credibility if you can't see their face and hear the tone of their voice. You can't check for bias if you don't know who they are. It could literally be Hillary as the masked whistleblower lol. This person is not testifying against a drug cartel. No reason for such measures.

Except. The law.

Quote:The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was enacted to protect federal employees who disclose "Government illegality, waste, and corruption" from adverse consequences related to their employment. This act provides protection to whistleblowers that may receive demotions, pay cuts, or a replacement employee.

The law protects them from retaliation, i.e. if they were fired or demoted they could sue etc. I see nothing in there that says they can make an allegation and never have to testify in open court. Or to remain anonymous in all court proceedings.

This is not a court case!

(10-10-2019 09:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 03:56 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 07:24 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I would discount the testimony completely if they did this. You can't gauge a witnesses credibility if you can't see their face and hear the tone of their voice. You can't check for bias if you don't know who they are. It could literally be Hillary as the masked whistleblower lol. This person is not testifying against a drug cartel. No reason for such measures.

Except. The law.

Quote:The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was enacted to protect federal employees who disclose "Government illegality, waste, and corruption" from adverse consequences related to their employment. This act provides protection to whistleblowers that may receive demotions, pay cuts, or a replacement employee.

The law protects them from retaliation, i.e. if they were fired or demoted they could sue etc. I see nothing in there that says they can make an allegation and never have to testify in open court. Or to remain anonymous in all court proceedings.

This is not a court case!

If impeachment proceeds there would be a trial in the Senate. You're right it is not in "court" but it is still a trial. If this person is completely anonymous with hearsay, then they are a worthless witness. I see nothing in the law that will prevent him/her from having to testify before the Senate if subpoenaed.

(10-10-2019 09:27 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 09:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 03:56 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 07:24 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I would discount the testimony completely if they did this. You can't gauge a witnesses credibility if you can't see their face and hear the tone of their voice. You can't check for bias if you don't know who they are. It could literally be Hillary as the masked whistleblower lol. This person is not testifying against a drug cartel. No reason for such measures.

Except. The law.

Quote:The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was enacted to protect federal employees who disclose "Government illegality, waste, and corruption" from adverse consequences related to their employment. This act provides protection to whistleblowers that may receive demotions, pay cuts, or a replacement employee.

The law protects them from retaliation, i.e. if they were fired or demoted they could sue etc. I see nothing in there that says they can make an allegation and never have to testify in open court. Or to remain anonymous in all court proceedings.

This is not a court case!

If impeachment proceeds there would be a trial in the Senate. You're right it is not in "court" but it is still a trial. If this person is completely anonymous with hearsay, then they are a worthless witness.

Dude, his account is credible and has been to shown to mirror the released transcript extensively. And you can call it a trial all you want, but that's not what it is currently. Different standards apply to sitting presidents for a number of reasons.

(10-10-2019 09:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 03:56 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 07:24 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I would discount the testimony completely if they did this. You can't gauge a witnesses credibility if you can't see their face and hear the tone of their voice. You can't check for bias if you don't know who they are. It could literally be Hillary as the masked whistleblower lol. This person is not testifying against a drug cartel. No reason for such measures.

Except. The law.

Quote:The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was enacted to protect federal employees who disclose "Government illegality, waste, and corruption" from adverse consequences related to their employment. This act provides protection to whistleblowers that may receive demotions, pay cuts, or a replacement employee.

The law protects them from retaliation, i.e. if they were fired or demoted they could sue etc. I see nothing in there that says they can make an allegation and never have to testify in open court. Or to remain anonymous in all court proceedings.

This is not a court case!

Of course it isn’t. It is just the attempt to remove a sitting president on the hearsay testimony of an anonymous person who has a political bias. Never mind their hearsay testimony does not match the reality of the event in question.
Just how stupid does this sound when you step back and take a look at the facts.....