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.
Plame wasn't really a whistleblower (that would have been her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson), and Libby was charged with a number of crimes, but he was but charged for revealing Plame's CIA status.
The issue will come down to the action's of Trump to gain personal benefit from his Quid Pro Quo. Trump was bribing the Pre. of Ukraine for his political gain.
Every President does that. That's how foreign policy works.
Everyone who has testified backs up the whistleblower’s statements. Denying that is laughable. Fear not, the Senate won’t impeach but anyone with a grain of sense knows Trump abused his power. Again.
Fox sure isn't doing a good jobs of explaining the process to the reps, are they? Whistleblowers don't need to be believed simply on their word, but they do need to have their assertions investigated to find the truth. It doesn't really matter why or what the whistleblower said. What matters is the investigation that follows and what evidence they find. Outing the whistleblower and subjecting him/her to questioning or harassment or even assassination is not going to change the findings in the investigation.
Sciff must testify about his lies that he didn't know who the whistle blower was and yet his staff met with him before he became a whistle blower.. he isn't even in the class of whistle blower. He had no first hand info and all his info was innuendo and speculation. Schiiff and the FAKE whistle blower must both testify about their lies.
Everyone who has testified backs up the whistleblower’s statements. Denying that is laughable. Fear not, the Senate won’t impeach but anyone with a grain of sense knows Trump abused his power. Again.
The FAKE whistle blowers statements were false. No evidence of Trump receiving anything .. no quid pro quo. Trump got NOTHING ..
One there is no transcript available. Part of the whistleblower complaint, was that the audio of the call was stored in a black ops server with very limited access, not in the typical system where presidential calls are stored. This was corroborated by the IG. We also know that by the WH own admission this is not a transcript but a memo. We also know that comparing word count analysis of previous call memos and call durations, show the Ukraine memo to be about 60% lighter. Since then we had a high ranking decorated military officer who was at the call state under oath that there are large sections of the call missing on the transcript and by his account some of the most damming bits. To keep calling the memo a transcript at this point is dishonest.
The content of the whistleblower report has been corroborated by testimony of other witnesses. Why would the whistleblower be needed at this point.
There really isn't a whistleblower, there's just a Democrat that disagreed with the president's foreign policy because they were worried it might negatively affect a Democrat by exposing their ties to corruption.
For it to be a legitimate whistleblower they'd have to have first hand information and it would have to be about actual wrongdoing, not just a policy disagreement.
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.
