They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. “Ken Starr "handed a tremendous amount of evidence to the House Judiciary Committee. How did he generate that evidence? In secret. What did he do? He put witnesses on before a grand jury ... Congressman Schiff is, in my opinion, following the rules of the House." - Andrew Napolitano, Fox News

And, Adam Schiff is not "independent" by any stretch of the imagination. Having him conduct this "investigation" is a joke.

Fox News contributor Ken Starr tells “The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino” that having House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., in charge of the ongoing impeachment probe is a “huge mistake.”

“We’re looking to someone named Adam Schiff who for all of his intelligence and abilities, he does not enjoy the respect of the other side the way [chairman of the House Judiciary Committee ] Peter Rodino did during [President Richard Nixon] and the way [fomer chairman of the House Judiciary Committee] Henry Hyde during [President Bill] Clinton.”

The former independent counsel, speaking on Wednesday, added, “Huge mistake to vest so much authority and power in someone who does not enjoy the respect on the other side.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-independent-counsel-ken-starr-calls-adam-schiff-leading-the-impeachment-probe-a-huge-mistake

If DOJ had investigated this when they received two different criminal referrals about it from two different Trump appointees at two different agencies, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But they didn’t. So the House has to do it.

No, the House doesn't have to do it.
DOJ found no reason to investigate. That tells you something right there - this is a partisan effort to overturn the 2019 election - something the Dems have been wanting to do since election day.

Just imagine that someone else had done what these people, Taylor and Vindman and the others, had said.

It would be wrong if someone else did it. It doesn't become ok just because Trump has an R next to his name. Or because he tweets.

[Anonymous]

^^ this is hard, but imagine if Obama did it.

You deniers are exhausting, hypocritical and blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. “Ken Starr "handed a tremendous amount of evidence to the House Judiciary Committee. How did he generate that evidence? In secret. What did he do? He put witnesses on before a grand jury ... Congressman Schiff is, in my opinion, following the rules of the House." - Andrew Napolitano, Fox News

And, Adam Schiff is not "independent" by any stretch of the imagination. Having him conduct this "investigation" is a joke.

Fox News contributor Ken Starr tells “The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino” that having House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., in charge of the ongoing impeachment probe is a “huge mistake.”

“We’re looking to someone named Adam Schiff who for all of his intelligence and abilities, he does not enjoy the respect of the other side the way [chairman of the House Judiciary Committee ] Peter Rodino did during [President Richard Nixon] and the way [fomer chairman of the House Judiciary Committee] Henry Hyde during [President Bill] Clinton.”

The former independent counsel, speaking on Wednesday, added, “Huge mistake to vest so much authority and power in someone who does not enjoy the respect on the other side.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-independent-counsel-ken-starr-calls-adam-schiff-leading-the-impeachment-probe-a-huge-mistake

If DOJ had investigated this when they received two different criminal referrals about it from two different Trump appointees at two different agencies, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But they didn’t. So the House has to do it.

No, the House doesn't have to do it.
DOJ found no reason to investigate. That tells you something right there - this is a partisan effort to overturn the 2019 election - something the Dems have been wanting to do since election day.

Funny, it actually tells me something very different. That’s clearly what it tells YOU, though.

[Anonymous]

That name has been out for weeks. This is not new information.

I hope this backfires against the GOP. I mean, really, HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That name has been out for weeks. This is not new information.

I hope this backfires against the GOP. I mean, really, HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?

40+ years of the modern conservative movement shows that (1) there is no limits to their depths and (2) there are no meaningful consequences since GOP Presidents continue to pardon those who break the law in the name of furthering power for Republicans.

We have a criminal syndicate that pardons their own crimes when they eventually come back into power. It's been this way since Gerald Ford.

[Anonymous]

I thought the Whistleblower Law prohibited making name public and it was a felony to identify person. I am not a lawyer so will a lawyer please tell us if this is the case.

If they do "out"him then I hope he writes a book and makes $$$$$$$$$!

[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?

Ok but either the call happened, or it didn't, and either the parties said what they said, or they didn't. And Trump and his people have acknowledged what was said; they just deny that it's a crime.

So even if the whistleblower has the WORST possible motives, the facts of the call are the facts. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. “Ken Starr "handed a tremendous amount of evidence to the House Judiciary Committee. How did he generate that evidence? In secret. What did he do? He put witnesses on before a grand jury ... Congressman Schiff is, in my opinion, following the rules of the House." - Andrew Napolitano, Fox News

And, Adam Schiff is not "independent" by any stretch of the imagination. Having him conduct this "investigation" is a joke.

Fox News contributor Ken Starr tells “The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino” that having House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., in charge of the ongoing impeachment probe is a “huge mistake.”

“We’re looking to someone named Adam Schiff who for all of his intelligence and abilities, he does not enjoy the respect of the other side the way [chairman of the House Judiciary Committee ] Peter Rodino did during [President Richard Nixon] and the way [fomer chairman of the House Judiciary Committee] Henry Hyde during [President Bill] Clinton.”


The former independent counsel, speaking on Wednesday, added, “Huge mistake to vest so much authority and power in someone who does not enjoy the respect on the other side.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-independent-counsel-ken-starr-calls-adam-schiff-leading-the-impeachment-probe-a-huge-mistake

Ken Starr should be banished from society forever after his stint at Baylor and the coverups he was in charge of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, the House doesn't have to do it.
DOJ found no reason to investigate. That tells you something right there - this is a partisan effort to overturn the 2019 election - something the Dems have been wanting to do since election day.

When AG Barr's name appears in the White House released "summary" transcript, and then AG Barr decides not to investigate, that is a conflict of interest. So saying "DOJ found no reason to investigate" is a little disingenuous, no?

Impeachment is not overturning the election. Impeachment is a guardrail provided by the Founders to hold the executive accountable for "high crimes and misdomenors" as specifically defined in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers as exactly what Trump has been doing, as codified by firsthand witnesses to the proceedings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fox News contributor Ken Starr tells “The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino” that having House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., in charge of the ongoing impeachment probe is a “huge mistake.”

“We’re looking to someone named Adam Schiff who for all of his intelligence and abilities, he does not enjoy the respect of the other side the way [chairman of the House Judiciary Committee ] Peter Rodino did during [President Richard Nixon] and the way [fomer chairman of the House Judiciary Committee] Henry Hyde during [President Bill] Clinton.”


The former independent counsel, speaking on Wednesday, added, “Huge mistake to vest so much authority and power in someone who does not enjoy the respect on the other side.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-independent-counsel-ken-starr-calls-adam-schiff-leading-the-impeachment-probe-a-huge-mistake

Schiff doesn't enjoy the respect of Republicans? Other than Pelosi, maybe, what Democrat congressperson does?


Let’s also remember that Ken Starr was one of Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys in the PalmBeach trial who helped him get only one year of work release for raping young girls. Who would put any stock in anything this monster’s opinions? Why has no reporter pinned him down on this?

I'm sorry, Mr. Starr, but it's not Schiff's fault that the House is broken. It may be partly your fault, but I'd say that you, like Trump, are a symptom, not a cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the Whistleblower Law prohibited making name public and it was a felony to identify person. I am not a lawyer so will a lawyer please tell us if this is the case.

If they do "out"him then I hope he writes a book and makes $$$$$$$$$!

This is false. The whistleblower act only prevents retaliation against the whistleblower. Anonymity is not guaranteed or even stated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, the House doesn't have to do it.
DOJ found no reason to investigate. That tells you something right there - this is a partisan effort to overturn the 2019 election - something the Dems have been wanting to do since election day.

When AG Barr's name appears in the White House released "summary" transcript, and then AG Barr decides not to investigate, that is a conflict of interest. So saying "DOJ found no reason to investigate" is a little disingenuous, no?

Impeachment is not overturning the election. Impeachment is a guardrail provided by the Founders to hold the executive accountable for "high crimes and misdomenors" as specifically defined in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers as exactly what Trump has been doing, as codified by firsthand witnesses to the proceedings.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, the House doesn't have to do it.
DOJ found no reason to investigate. That tells you something right there - this is a partisan effort to overturn the 2019 election - something the Dems have been wanting to do since election day.

When AG Barr's name appears in the White House released "summary" transcript, and then AG Barr decides not to investigate, that is a conflict of interest. So saying "DOJ found no reason to investigate" is a little disingenuous, no?

Impeachment is not overturning the election. Impeachment is a guardrail provided by the Founders to hold the executive accountable for "high crimes and misdomenors" as specifically defined in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers as exactly what Trump has been doing, as codified by firsthand witnesses to the proceedings.

This is pure bull$hit. There is more evidence that Schiff has a conflict of interest considering he lied about the WB contacting his office.
And, this IS overturning an election. Trump was elected. He has committed no crime. This is what the Dems have been working on since the 2016 election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, the House doesn't have to do it.
DOJ found no reason to investigate. That tells you something right there - this is a partisan effort to overturn the 2019 election - something the Dems have been wanting to do since election day.

When AG Barr's name appears in the White House released "summary" transcript, and then AG Barr decides not to investigate, that is a conflict of interest. So saying "DOJ found no reason to investigate" is a little disingenuous, no?

Impeachment is not overturning the election. Impeachment is a guardrail provided by the Founders to hold the executive accountable for "high crimes and misdomenors" as specifically defined in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers as exactly what Trump has been doing, as codified by firsthand witnesses to the proceedings.

This is pure bull$hit. There is more evidence that Schiff has a conflict of interest considering he lied about the WB contacting his office.
And, this IS overturning an election. Trump was elected. He has committed no crime. This is what the Dems have been working on since the 2016 election.

You would say the same if Obama were found to have done the same actions?

Honestly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. “Ken Starr "handed a tremendous amount of evidence to the House Judiciary Committee. How did he generate that evidence? In secret. What did he do? He put witnesses on before a grand jury ... Congressman Schiff is, in my opinion, following the rules of the House." - Andrew Napolitano, Fox News

And, Adam Schiff is not "independent" by any stretch of the imagination. Having him conduct this "investigation" is a joke.

Fox News contributor Ken Starr tells “The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino” that having House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., in charge of the ongoing impeachment probe is a “huge mistake.”

“We’re looking to someone named Adam Schiff who for all of his intelligence and abilities, he does not enjoy the respect of the other side the way [chairman of the House Judiciary Committee ] Peter Rodino did during [President Richard Nixon] and the way [fomer chairman of the House Judiciary Committee] Henry Hyde during [President Bill] Clinton.”

The former independent counsel, speaking on Wednesday, added, “Huge mistake to vest so much authority and power in someone who does not enjoy the respect on the other side.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-independent-counsel-ken-starr-calls-adam-schiff-leading-the-impeachment-probe-a-huge-mistake

If DOJ had investigated this when they received two different criminal referrals about it from two different Trump appointees at two different agencies, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But they didn’t. So the House has to do it.

No, the House doesn't have to do it.
DOJ found no reason to investigate. That tells you something right there - this is a partisan effort to overturn the 2019 election - something the Dems have been wanting to do since election day.

Don't be silly. Barr is a partisan. You can't take anything he says seriously because he is completely biased. His is a partisan effort to block Congressional oversight, something Trump has been wanting to do since election day.