They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sickened by this. Deep Throat was not exposed. Why are the Republicans surrounding Trump? These are NOT their ideals. What does he hold over them? This is not the America I Know (Grandad WW2 vet—Normandy/Republican; Dad, Vietnam Vet—Repub)! I am sickened by this.

The NYTimes did not publish details about Deep Throat's identity.
And, Adam Schiff wasn't in office to leak to the media.

Haha. Nora Ephron knew Deep Throat's identity and told lots of people. No one took her seriously.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/09/27/deep-throats-identity-was-mystery-decades-because-no-one-believed-this-woman/

[Anonymous]

Ok all these fires around Trump. He’s worse than California burning. Why are people not seeing the smoke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iim trying to get it, but I don’t get it. Trump supporters: Is there any legitimate, non-shameful, reason to learn the whistleblower’s political leanings? Why is his/her motive relevant to the substance?

From drudge:
the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
****
Let’s say he’s Obama’s nephew - how does that affect what’s happened?

Evidently, he was "released" (fired) from a previous govt. job for leaking.
His Trump Hate definitely colored his perception of the phone call. And, considering he didn't even listen to it, one has to wonder if this was an organized effort, and if so, were any in Congress involved?

Apparently he colored Vindman's perception of the phone call. Both Vindmans.

Mind control? Maybe he's a Jedi?

I think we will eventually find that Vindman went to this person. Vindman gave him the details.

I think we will find out that lots of people told lots of people how bad things were going with US-, Ukraine policy, or lack thereof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again - there is nothing in the whistleblower protection act that demands anonymity for the whistleblower.

In fact, if the House votes to impeach, I am certain he will be subpoenaed by the Senate.

Once again, prior to 2016 there was no law that a president had to release his tax returns. And there wasn't a law that they president should't make fun of disabled people on national television. There wasn't a law saying that the president should believe U.S. intelligence agencies over Russia. Etc. Common decency isn't a law. And I'd be inclined to respect your POV if Trump would actually respect exisiting laws. He hasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iim trying to get it, but I don’t get it. Trump supporters: Is there any legitimate, non-shameful, reason to learn the whistleblower’s political leanings? Why is his/her motive relevant to the substance?

From drudge:
the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
****
Let’s say he’s Obama’s nephew - how does that affect what’s happened?

Evidently, he was "released" (fired) from a previous govt. job for leaking.
His Trump Hate definitely colored his perception of the phone call. And, considering he didn't even listen to it, one has to wonder if this was an organized effort, and if so, were any in Congress involved?

Let’s say he was fired from his previous job and then Jared slept with his wife and sent him the videos. Let’s say there’s a coordinated effort to funnel all this damaging information to him by all the Trump appointees and career public servants. How does that change that it is universally recognized to be wrong to ask a foreign govt to investigate a US person and police rival, and then to withhold bipartisan aid to boot? Even those who say it’s not impeachable say it’s wrong. It needs to be investigated, even if you think it’s a bad judgment call. Even the game 6 umpire asked questions after his call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok all these fires around Trump. He’s worse than California burning. Why are people not seeing the smoke?

The Democrats have had bellows around Trump and have been starting fires and stoking the flames. That is the smoke you are seeing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iim trying to get it, but I don’t get it. Trump supporters: Is there any legitimate, non-shameful, reason to learn the whistleblower’s political leanings? Why is his/her motive relevant to the substance?

From drudge:
the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
****
Let’s say he’s Obama’s nephew - how does that affect what’s happened?

Evidently, he was "released" (fired) from a previous govt. job for leaking.
His Trump Hate definitely colored his perception of the phone call. And, considering he didn't even listen to it, one has to wonder if this was an organized effort, and if so, were any in Congress involved?

Apparently he colored Vindman's perception of the phone call. Both Vindmans.

Mind control? Maybe he's a Jedi?

I think we will eventually find that Vindman went to this person. Vindman gave him the details.

I think we will find out that lots of people told lots of people how bad things were going with US-Ukraine policy, or lack thereof.

Some of us have found that out already! Just by reading the public statement of those who have testified!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iim trying to get it, but I don’t get it. Trump supporters: Is there any legitimate, non-shameful, reason to learn the whistleblower’s political leanings? Why is his/her motive relevant to the substance?

From drudge:
the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
****
Let’s say he’s Obama’s nephew - how does that affect what’s happened?

Evidently, he was "released" (fired) from a previous govt. job for leaking.
His Trump Hate definitely colored his perception of the phone call. And, considering he didn't even listen to it, one has to wonder if this was an organized effort, and if so, were any in Congress involved?

Oh hon. We see right through you. Your Trump delusion has colored your perception of the phone call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok all these fires around Trump. He’s worse than California burning. Why are people not seeing the smoke?

The Democrats have had bellows around Trump and have been starting fires and stoking the flames. That is the smoke you are seeing.

Trump destroys everything he touches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iim trying to get it, but I don’t get it. Trump supporters: Is there any legitimate, non-shameful, reason to learn the whistleblower’s political leanings? Why is his/her motive relevant to the substance?

From drudge:
the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
****
Let’s say he’s Obama’s nephew - how does that affect what’s happened?

Evidently, he was "released" (fired) from a previous govt. job for leaking.
His Trump Hate definitely colored his perception of the phone call. And, considering he didn't even listen to it, one has to wonder if this was an organized effort, and if so, were any in Congress involved?

So how do you explain the public testimony that underpins the Whistleblower information? Are you saying all of these people, including Sondland, are lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iim trying to get it, but I don’t get it. Trump supporters: Is there any legitimate, non-shameful, reason to learn the whistleblower’s political leanings? Why is his/her motive relevant to the substance?

From drudge:
the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
****
Let’s say he’s Obama’s nephew - how does that affect what’s happened?

Evidently, he was "released" (fired) from a previous govt. job for leaking.
His Trump Hate definitely colored his perception of the phone call. And, considering he didn't even listen to it, one has to wonder if this was an organized effort, and if so, were any in Congress involved?

Apparently he colored Vindman's perception of the phone call. Both Vindmans.

Mind control? Maybe he's a Jedi?

I think we will eventually find that Vindman went to this person. Vindman gave him the details.

I think we will find out that lots of people told lots of people how bad things were going with US-Ukraine policy, or lack thereof.

Some of us have found that out already! Just by reading the public statement of those who have testified!

Prosecutors would LOVE it if the jury were able to decide guilty or not after simply listening to their opening statements. Every accused person would be found not guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young 33 yr old prep student / Yale. How can we protect him?? I can’t believe the Repubs and Trump. What can we do?

Some anonymous person is not going to overturn a legitimate presidential election. I can assure you of that.

No one is overturning an election. The Impeachment process was written into the US Constitution to safeguard against the very activity Trump is engaged in. If Trump is removed, Pence becomes the president, not Hillary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iim trying to get it, but I don’t get it. Trump supporters: Is there any legitimate, non-shameful, reason to learn the whistleblower’s political leanings? Why is his/her motive relevant to the substance?

From drudge:
the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
****
Let’s say he’s Obama’s nephew - how does that affect what’s happened?

Evidently, he was "released" (fired) from a previous govt. job for leaking.
His Trump Hate definitely colored his perception of the phone call. And, considering he didn't even listen to it, one has to wonder if this was an organized effort, and if so, were any in Congress involved?

Apparently he colored Vindman's perception of the phone call. Both Vindmans.

Mind control? Maybe he's a Jedi?

I think we will eventually find that Vindman went to this person. Vindman gave him the details.

I think we will find out that lots of people told lots of people how bad things were going with US-Ukraine policy, or lack thereof.

Some of us have found that out already! Just by reading the public statement of those who have testified!

Prosecutors would LOVE it if the jury were able to decide guilty or not after simply listening to their opening statements. Every accused person would be found not guilty.

This process is equivalent to an investigation, not a jury trial. Please keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iim trying to get it, but I don’t get it. Trump supporters: Is there any legitimate, non-shameful, reason to learn the whistleblower’s political leanings? Why is his/her motive relevant to the substance?

From drudge:
the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
****
Let’s say he’s Obama’s nephew - how does that affect what’s happened?

Evidently, he was "released" (fired) from a previous govt. job for leaking.
His Trump Hate definitely colored his perception of the phone call. And, considering he didn't even listen to it, one has to wonder if this was an organized effort, and if so, were any in Congress involved?

Oh hon. We see right through you. Your Trump delusion has colored your perception of the phone call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok all these fires around Trump. He’s worse than California burning. Why are people not seeing the smoke?

The Democrats have had bellows around Trump and have been starting fires and stoking the flames. That is the smoke you are seeing.

The dems imposed the tariffs?
The dems are undermining NATO?
The dems passed a disasterous tax bill?
The dems exposed the Kurds?
The dems are caging children and separating them from their families?
The dems are undermining public education?
The dems are collapsing public housing?
The dems are exposing more people to a lack of health coverage?
The dems passed Russians a drive in the Oval Office?
The dems allowed MSB to get away with slicing and dicing a journalist?
The dems said there are fine people in Charlottesville who are neo-nazi's?
The dems are holding up election security legislation?
The dems are holding up gun safety legislation?

I could go on, but you get the point, the dems are not starting fires and stoking flames.