Anonymous
11/06/2019 16:39
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Meanwhile, Rand Paul is on the Senate floor trying to get whistleblower protections for non-whistleblower criminal Edward Snowden, while promoting exposure of the whistleblower who actually followed protocol and deserves protection of the law. WTF is going on?
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/api/amp/theintellectualist/news/rand-paul-wants-whistleblower-protection-for-snowden-who-currently-enjoys-putin-s-protection-in-TF5Tf-cbZkaQtz4xMKEgXg/?__twitter_impression=true
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/api/amp/theintellectualist/news/rand-paul-wants-whistleblower-protection-for-snowden-who-currently-enjoys-putin-s-protection-in-TF5Tf-cbZkaQtz4xMKEgXg/?__twitter_impression=true
Anonymous
11/06/2019 15:46
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Donald Junior did the deed. I hope he gets charged and prosecuted for an obvious crime.
Anonymous
11/01/2019 09:38
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
No use trying to get an honest answer from a Republican. They are wedded to the idea that no amount of lying and corruption is too much to ask in order to keep power and get judges.
DP. Agree with quoted PP right above me. The GOP is all about lies to protect their power right now. They made up stories about Obama the whole time he was in office. Now they make up stories to protect Trump, so that they can stay in power.
The GOP has no credibility.
Anonymous
11/01/2019 06:47
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Holding irresponisble journalists and politicians responsible for breaking privacy laws is a good idea. Putting them on notice ahead of their breaking the law is a better idea.
Why do republicans hate our rule of law so much? It was such a core part of the brand. "respect for the rule of law" for decades, that has been completely demolished in just a few short years.
If we are going to hold journalists responsible for "breaking privacy laws," then we will also need to hold them accountable for breaking laws when they publish confidential information via leaks.
Do you want to do that too?
There are many laws that even journalists have to follow. They learn about them in journalism school. They do not have an unfettered right to do whatever they want (nor does the POTUS, btw).
Anonymous
11/01/2019 06:28
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Anonymous wrote:Holding irresponisble journalists and politicians responsible for breaking privacy laws is a good idea. Putting them on notice ahead of their breaking the law is a better idea.
Why do republicans hate our rule of law so much? It was such a core part of the brand. "respect for the rule of law" for decades, that has been completely demolished in just a few short years.
If we are going to hold journalists responsible for "breaking privacy laws," then we will also need to hold them accountable for breaking laws when they publish confidential information via leaks.
Do you want to do that too?
Anonymous
11/01/2019 06:06
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Holding irresponisble journalists and politicians responsible for breaking privacy laws is a good idea. Putting them on notice ahead of their breaking the law is a better idea.
Why do republicans hate our rule of law so much? It was such a core part of the brand. "respect for the rule of law" for decades, that has been completely demolished in just a few short years.
Why do republicans hate our rule of law so much? It was such a core part of the brand. "respect for the rule of law" for decades, that has been completely demolished in just a few short years.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 23:36
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
https://compassrosepllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019_1031_STATEMENT-ON-SPECULATION-OF-WHISTLEBLOWER-IDENTITY.pdf
Speculating on the whistleblower puts that person in danger and the entity putting that person in danger is liable.
Speculating on the whistleblower puts that person in danger and the entity putting that person in danger is liable.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 23:25
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's so silly. All of these Twitterers think that the whistleblower's identity makes everything else go away. Taylor's testimony, Sondland, Vindman, everyone.
Are they that braindead?
+1. There’s like 10 whistleblowers at this point. Many are military or former military. You think the drudge report will scare them?
This was not a Drudge Report original article. Drudge simply linked to a story on Real Clear Investigations.
And why does Real Clear Investigations think doxxing the whistleblower is a good thing to do?
SMH
Anonymous
10/31/2019 23:21
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's so silly. All of these Twitterers think that the whistleblower's identity makes everything else go away. Taylor's testimony, Sondland, Vindman, everyone.
Are they that braindead?
+1. There’s like 10 whistleblowers at this point. Many are military or former military. You think the drudge report will scare them?
This was not a Drudge Report original article. Drudge simply linked to a story on Real Clear Investigations.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 22:54
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
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.
I don't see where he lied. Even if he did lie, there is no conflict of interest. Even if he has a conflict of interest, there are facts in the public record which are not under Schiff's control. Trump has stopped people from testifying, but so far, he has not gotten a single person to back him up in public.
If 10 people say you shot someone, you prevent 10 other witnesses from testifying, and you can't produce one witness who says you didn't, wouldn't we conclude that you probably shot someone?
Unless you are Trump on Fifth Avenue, I guess.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 22:47
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Anonymous wrote:It's so silly. All of these Twitterers think that the whistleblower's identity makes everything else go away. Taylor's testimony, Sondland, Vindman, everyone.
Are they that braindead?
+1. There’s like 10 whistleblowers at this point. Many are military or former military. You think the drudge report will scare them?
Anonymous
10/31/2019 15:02
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
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$hit. There is more evidence that Schiff has a conflict of interest considering he lied about the WB contacting his office.
And, this IS overturning an election. Trump was elected. He has committed no crime. This is what the Dems have been working on since the 2016 election.
You are delusional.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 13:27
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
No, the House doesn't have to do it.
DOJ found no reason to investigate. That tells you something right there - this is a partisan effort to overturn the 2019 election - something the Dems have been wanting to do since election day.
When AG Barr's name appears in the White House released "summary" transcript, and then AG Barr decides not to investigate, that is a conflict of interest. So saying "DOJ found no reason to investigate" is a little disingenuous, no?
Impeachment is not overturning the election. Impeachment is a guardrail provided by the Founders to hold the executive accountable for "high crimes and misdomenors" as specifically defined in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers as exactly what Trump has been doing, as codified by firsthand witnesses to the proceedings.
This is pure bull$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.
Trump and Pence were elected, and it’s to be determined whether he or they have committed any crimes.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 13:22
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
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.
Not only that, but in the Notes of the Constitutional Convention, one of the topics discussed when they came up with impeachment was that a president running for re-election could do just about anything to further his own campaign. So this is exactly the situation they were worried about.
Anonymous
10/31/2019 12:37
Subject: They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
Anonymous wrote: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?
No use trying to get an honest answer from a Republican. They are wedded to the idea that no amount of lying and corruption is too much to ask in order to keep power and get judges.