Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everything Whistleblower has said, has turned out to be true. Trump and Guilianni said it on tv.. and their transcripts shows it!!
It's like they can't read or hear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran
I agree with this. The source is the transcript. Trump and Giuiani have not disputed any of this. I fail to see how you can demand to see a source when it has been released.Trump mentioned the aid Ukraine needs to defend itself against Russian invasion, and then asks for a favor. The favor is to dig up dirt on a political enemy.
The whistleblower is CIA. He is protected by a law. Maybe we’ll know his/her identity, and maybe not.
I think Trump gaslights and his supporters are willing victims.
Willing accomplices many of them. I don't believe that all Trump supporters are THAT stupid. They know exactly what he did. They just don't care.
Impeachment and removal from office of a duly elected President of the United States: It's an idea that's been flirted with a few times, but America hasn't been crazy enough to actually do it yet. It's about the biggest of big deals as you get. It should require extremely high standards before we even consider proceeding.
You wanna make the case for impeaching the President? You better be laying all your cards on the table! At this point, you could be forgiven for suspecting that the Whistle Blower isn't even real. For all we know, Trump asked people to spread false gossip so he could uncover more of the people constantly leaking to the press. And let's face it. This is Ferris Bueller's Day Off here. The Whistle Blower doesn't actually know anything. He heard it from a guy who knows a guy ...
Under the Constitution, a person accused has a right to confront their accuser.
Since Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will be serving as the presiding judge for a trial in the US Senate - should one occur - I am going to step out on a limb and predict that he not only knows this, but that he will insist that this mainstay provision in the Bill of Rights is respected and adhered to.
Absolutely, if the original source had been the whistleblower they would have been protected. Leaking information this way means this person cannot be trusted with what could be important Government Secrets, regardless of who is President. This goes way beyond Trump and whomever is in office. You cannot have someone in a position with access to sensitive information with "loose lips"
What nonsense. If someone is violating the Constitution you have a duty to speak.
It took thirty years before Mark Felt was revealed as Deep Throat
Nixon was never actually impeached, much less tried in the Senate. He resigned instead of allowing that to happen. Suffice it to say, President Trump will not be resigning.
If President Trump does face trial in the Senate in front of presiding judge Chief Justice John Roberts, the defendant will have the constitutional right to confront their accuser.
Anyone who is expecting that our duly elected president will be removed from office based on anonymous, second-hand, uncorroborated allegations, is out of their mind.
Nixon was never actually impeached, much less tried in the Senate. He resigned instead of allowing that to happen. Suffice it to say, President Trump will not be resigning.
If President Trump does face trial in the Senate in front of presiding judge Chief Justice John Roberts, the defendant will have the constitutional right to confront their accuser.
Anyone who is expecting that our duly elected president will be removed from office based on anonymous, second-hand, uncorroborated allegations, is out of their mind.
It depends on who the accuser is. The whistleblower apparently heard this from someone else. Neither the prosecutor or the defense may want the whistle blower to testify. It will take someone with first hand knowledge to convict Trump that is for sure. Hell, the odds of a conviction in the Senate are close to zero even if Trump is guilty as hell. There is no Goldwater equivalent here.
It depends on who the accuser is. The whistleblower apparently heard this from someone else. Neither the prosecutor or the defense may want the whistle blower to testify. It will take someone with first hand knowledge to convict Trump that is for sure. Hell, the odds of a conviction in the Senate are close to zero even if Trump is guilty as hell. There is no Goldwater equivalent here.
The thing is, if President Trump is not permitted to confront his accuser, one would expect the charge from the House to be dismissed at the beginning of the proceeding by the presiding judge, without any need for the Senators to vote on anything at all.
Final disposition: Case dismissed
Last edited by Spartacus713; 09-28-2019 at 10:26 PM..
They should be allowed to remain anonymous, but only so far as to lead to other damning evidence. If they are to remain anonymous, their testimony should not be considered as part of the evidence. Everyone has a right to confront their accuser. Otherwise anyone who doesn’t like another person can say whatever they want about that person, leaving the accused completely unable to defend themselves.
What is there to testify about? The issue is transcripts of phone calls. The individual that reported it isn’t essential.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
