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.
The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to appropriate funds. The Congress explicitly denied funding for a border wall. Trump declared a state of emergency and then took money appropriated to the Defense Department to build his wall. Is this not a clear abuse of power? Why do we even have a Congress if the president thinks he can do whatever he wants as long as he declares a state of emergency?
You can clearly see where trump abused his power and was smacked down by the Judicial. How many Eo's and policies are currently under injunction.
Start of a rumor that the whistleblower doesn't actually exist: it's DT's cabinet that leaked the story.
I don't understand how people can claim that the whistleblower did not really exist. Trump-appointed Michael Atkinson already looked in to the complaint and found it to be credible. IQs in this country must be dropping sharply with every Trump conspiratorial tweet.
So, these other are validating what the WB stated....why did these people more familiar with the call, come forward long before the WB? Because you disagree with the president, does not mean he did anything wrong....no matter how much of a fit you throw or stomp your feet.
So, these other are validating what the WB stated....why did these people more familiar with the call, come forward long before the WB? Because you disagree with the president, does not mean he did anything wrong....no matter how much of a fit you throw or stomp your feet.
They did come forward. They reported it to the person who ultimately became the whistleblower. Its right there on page 2 of the whistleblower report where the whistleblower writes, "[m]ultiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that . . . the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests" and then goes on to describe in detail what he/she was told.
Incidentally, the whistleblower's complaint was thereafter corroborated by the readout of the call released by the White House.
You keep posting all this stuff about the whistleblower, yet you seem to lack any grasp on the basic facts. Why is that?
They did come forward. They reported it to the person who ultimately became the whistleblower. Its right there on page 2 of the whistleblower report where the whistleblower writes, "[m]ultiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that . . . the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests" and then goes on to describe in detail what he/she was told.
Incidentally, the whistleblower's complaint was thereafter corroborated by the readout of the call released by the White House.
You keep posting all this stuff about the whistleblower, yet you seem to lack any grasp on the basic facts. Why is that?
That was second and 3rd hand knowledge from people that were familiar with the phone call....not those that were on the phone call...big difference.. Yes, the readout has been validated, which still means there was nothing wrong with the phone call.
I grasp far more than than many of you folks....your folks have been grasping at russia...stormy....etc....and you're still grasping, why is that?
That was second and 3rd hand knowledge from people that were familiar with the phone call....not those that were on the phone call...big difference.. Yes, the readout has been validated, which still means there was nothing wrong with the phone call.
I grasp far more than than many of you folks....your folks have been grasping at russia...stormy....etc....and you're still grasping, why is that?
"Direct knowledge" is the opposite of "second- or third-hand knowledge." It is personal, first-hand knowledge.
Do you people really need to be spoon-fed even the most basic of information?
So, these other are validating what the WB stated....why did these people more familiar with the call, come forward long before the WB?.
they did:
"Vindman, the first witness who claims to have heard Trump's July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelenskiy to testify so far, said the conversation had so alarmed him that he reported the matter to lawyers for the National Security Council (NSC)."
not helping your point since we know now that trump lied both about the affair ( trump and his legal team admitted to it in court filings ) and having knowledge about the pay-off ( guiliani admitted trump was repaying cohen in installments going well into his term as president ).
"Direct knowledge" is the opposite of "second- or third-hand knowledge." It is personal, first-hand knowledge.
Do you people really need to be spoon-fed even the most basic of information?
If they heard it from another, that is not first hand knowledge....that is second and third hand knowledge...
Your hate from trump is very clear, you let stuff get in the way and don't actual take into account for much of anything, other than you hate trump....
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.
Trump: Whistleblower Gave False Info, Must Come Forward to Testify
