Anonymous
10/31/2019 08:20
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
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.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 08:20
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
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?
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
10/31/2019 08:15
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
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.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 08:05
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
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
Anonymous
10/31/2019 07:28
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
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
Anonymous
10/31/2019 06:34
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
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.
Republicans are the worst. “Poor people aren’t entitled to food, housing, medical care, or anything fun because they need to have personal responsibility!” “Women need to accept the punishment of being a mother if they have sex or they won’t learn personal responsibility!”
“It’s the Democrats’ fault that Donald engages in treason!” You guys are too much.
Also, OP - stop clinging to your notions that the GOP has honor just because Eisenhower was an okay dude. They’re not a political party, they’re the mafia. Literally.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 04:44
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Anonymous wrote:This is non”whistleblower” entitled to anonymity.
Folks are upset because the guy is identified as a partisan hack (Democrat). Crumbling narrative!
Lol. Trump, you are so transparent.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 03:30
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Anonymous wrote:This is non”whistleblower” entitled to anonymity.
Folks are upset because the guy is identified as a partisan hack (Democrat). Crumbling narrative!
So what if he is?
So what?
Let’s say a bank is being robbed, but the guy who calls it in a a total a$$hole. Does it change the fact that the bank is being robbed?
Anonymous
10/31/2019 02:45
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
This is non”whistleblower” entitled to anonymity.
Folks are upset because the guy is identified as a partisan hack (Democrat). Crumbling narrative!
Folks are upset because the guy is identified as a partisan hack (Democrat). Crumbling narrative!
Anonymous
10/31/2019 02:37
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
it is messed up. Very disappointed but the GOP has sold its soul to the devil.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 00:23
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Pretty messed up that Drudge and the linked website are trying to reveal a CIA officer’s name
Anonymous
10/30/2019 22:40
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
I asked Jeff to remove any identifying info
Anonymous
10/30/2019 22:37
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
I contacted Drudge. Surprised someone from Takoma Park would allow this report to appear. Takoma Park usually protests loud and clear and stands up for the little guy.
Anonymous
10/30/2019 22:31
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Ok. Can we get Drudge to take info down? Boycott? I am aghast at our country and the press! I agree.
Anonymous
10/30/2019 22:29
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Please, please, please do not share any information about the whistleblower. Whether it's true or not, it fuels speculation and could put this person in danger.
Please.
Please.