President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Spencerfreeman

Stole this comment;
"Bolton served in the National Guard Reserve in the 1970s. I heard he is going to re-enlist this week so he can wear his uniform when he testifies."

hetuzozaho

Does it ever matter who the whistleblower is though? Like if wrongdoing happened it happened regardless of who blew the whistle.

Spencerfreeman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Does it ever matter who the whistleblower is though? Like if wrongdoing happened it happened regardless of who blew the whistle.

Because through his associations they can show that he's partisan against Trump.

Outlaw Pete

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Does it ever matter who the whistleblower is though? Like if wrongdoing happened it happened regardless of who blew the whistle.

It shows that these people have an agenda and are spying on the President, not merely becoming 'whistleblowers' because they feel a 'high crime' has been committed, but because the POTUS' views don't align with theirs and they want him removed solely for that reason. There has been talk of impeachment since day one for heaven sake, how naive do the left think everyone else is. They are misusing the whistleblower laws and also misusing the impeachment process. This is an attempted coup. Nothing more. Nothing less.

hetuzozaho

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It shows that these people have an agenda and are spying on the President.

But if they catch him doing things he shouldn't then happy days no? We want people to be accountable for their actions?

Spencerfreeman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

But if they catch him doing things he shouldn't then happy days no? We want people to be accountable for their actions?

Indeed we do. Lets hope Trump arrests them all.

mcmoustache

The whistleblower's complaint has been corroborated by Trump and his administration. He could be Satan himself and it matters not a bit. That ship has sailed.

And that's without all of the other witnesses who have confirmed to the House Impeachment inquiry that Trump did what the whistleblower claimed.

hetuzozaho

mcmoustache wrote: »

The whistleblower's complaint has been corroborated by Trump and his administration. He could be Satan himself and it matters not a bit. That ship has sailed.

Yep that's what I thought.

It's like in my line of work, QA are out to get me but it keeps me honest and on top of my game.

hetuzozaho

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Indeed we do. Lets hope Trump arrests them all.

Who should he arrest? And can he yes?

Spencerfreeman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Who should he arrest? And can he yes?

I was being risible.
Some are going down, not necessarily over Ukrainegate but certainly over Russiagate.

mcmoustache

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Because through his associations they can show that he's partisan against Trump.

That hardly matters though. It would matter if the whistleblower made the complaint and it was found to be false or uncorroborated.


But we're way past the whistleblower mattering at this point.


I get it though. It's vitally important that anyone complaining about Trump needs to be smeared. I think it's stupid but I do get it.

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

That hardly matters though. It would matter if the whistleblower made the complaint and it was found to be false or uncorroborated.


But we're way past the whistleblower mattering at this point.


I get it though. It's vitally important that anyone complaining about Trump needs to be smeared. I think it's stupid but I do get it.

If you find anyone that's not smearing Trump be sure and let me know.

hetuzozaho

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Some are going down,

Who are you talking about, separate to the impeachment stuff is it?

hetuzozaho

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

If you find anyone that's not smearing Trump be sure and let me know.

There's a few on this very thread.

Spencerfreeman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Who are you talking about, separate to the impeachment stuff is it?

Yes, the current attempt is to try to stop him.
They haven't named names yet but they will soon.

hetuzozaho

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Yes, the current attempt is to try to stop him.
They haven't named names yet but they will be soon.

Who is him? And who are they?

Spencerfreeman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Who is him? And who are they?

Waiting on the Durham inquiry into who invented "russiagate".
Basically where the Trump collusion lie came from.
And of course where all the people calling "russian bot" came from too.

Outlaw Pete

hetuzozaho wrote: »

But if they catch him doing things he shouldn't then happy days no? We want people to be accountable for their actions?

I would agree if there was an actual crime he had committed. I have no problem condemning Trump. Have done so a good few times already and if he does something very wrong, then I'll be behind efforts to remove him from office but this has all been a farce since he became the republican candidate.

The CIA, FBI, DNC all attempted to nefariously (and perhaps illegally, we'll soon see) sway the American public into voting for Hillary by suggesting that the Trump campaign was trying to fix the election with the help of Russia (and that Trump was willing a participant as a result of them having compromising information on him). When that failed they continued their efforts from within and have been doing so every since.

Just imagine of this all this had been done to a democrat who was running for president and who then won. The public at large are barely aware of most of what has gone on and personally I believe that the worst of it is yet to be exposed.

Spencerfreeman

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I would agree if there was an actual crime he had committed. I have no problem condemning Trump. Have done so a good few times already and if he does something very wrong, then I'll be behind efforts to remove him from office but this has all been a farce since he became the republican candidate.

The CIA, FBI, DNC all attempted to nefariously (and perhaps illegally, we'll soon see) sway the American public into voting for Hillary by suggesting that the Trump campaign was trying to fix the election with the help of Russia (and that Trump was willing a participant as a result of them having compromising information on him). When that failed they continued their efforts from within and have been doing so every since.

Just imagine of this all this had been done to a democrat who was running for president and who then won. The public at large are barely aware of most of what has gone on and personally I believe that the worst of it is yet to be exposed.

Not perhaps illegally, it's now a criminal inquiry so definitely illegally.

hetuzozaho

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The public at large are barely aware of most of what has gone on and personally I believe that the worst of it is yet to be exposed.

Oh I'd say so. As the inquiry goes on it will be interesting for sure

Spencerfreeman

The previously named whistleblower now suspected of being involved in "Russiagate" hoax.

mcmoustache

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The previously named whistleblower now suspected of being involved in "Russiagate" hoax.

I heard he punched a puppy.


Unfortunately, that horse has bolted. Is there anything from the complaint that hasn't since been corroborated? If the whistleblower was the only source, then sure, the smearing might work. But he isn't and it isn't.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is there anything from the complaint that hasn't since been corroborated?

Yes, lots - I went through them in this post.

That's the post were you said I was 'over complicating' things

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

I heard he punched a puppy.


Unfortunately, that horse has bolted. Is there anything from the complaint that hasn't since been corroborated? If the whistleblower was the only source, then sure, the smearing might work. But he isn't and it isn't.

Might be nothing, we'll have confirmation soon.

Outlaw Pete

It's utterly insane that they are getting away with this ...


https://twitter.com/lawyer4laws/status/1189675429571022848

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's utterly insane that they are getting away with this ...


https://twitter.com/lawyer4laws/status/1189675429571022848

Do you ever look into the randos that you dump here or is it just a weird tick?

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, lots - I went through them in this post.

That's the post were you said I was 'over complicating' things

I decided to take a look and it's impressive in it's inability to understand a conversation. And given that you've already argued that what he did was just fine, I can't help but feel that you're trying to have your cake and eat it.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Do you ever look into the randos that you dump here or is it just a weird tick?

Do you ever stop taking smart arse personal digs at people?

I post what I deem to be relevant to the topic. Maybe stop focusing on the Twitter accounts and focus on the actual content instead.

The clip is of Debbie Lesko, a member of the house of representatives and a member of the judiciary committee, and she is reading portions of the impeachment resolution and giving her views on them with regards to their fairness.

mcmoustache wrote: »

I decided to take a look and it's impressive in it's inability to understand a conversation. And given that you've already argued that what he did was just fine, I can't help but feel that you're trying to have your cake and eat it.

You're going to have to be a bit more specific, I went through the whole complaint and pointed out just what has not been corroborated.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Do you ever stop taking smart arse personal digs at people?

I post what I deem to be relevant to the topic. Maybe stop focusing on the Twitter accounts and focus on the actual content instead.

The clip is of Debbie Lesko, a member of the house of representatives and a member of the judiciary committee, and she is reading portions of the impeachment resolution and giving her views on them with regards to their fairness.

Cool. So the minority claims that the rules are unfair. It's always been like that. The majority makes the rules. If the republicans wanted to make the rules, they shouldn't have become the minority in the house. It's only a year ago that the republicans ran the investigations and they were able to set the rules.


This is like a losing soccer team complaining that they can't share the trophy.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Because through his associations they can show that he's partisan against Trump.

I’m partisan against weather but I can still tell you when it’s raining

Everything was corroborated