Graham: Impeachment 'dead on arrival' in Senate if House bars 'whistleblower' testimony (Clinton, Obama)
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 asked Ukrainians to prove their commitment to fighting corruption by looking into a few high profile instances of likely corruption. That's something that is completely normal and there's nothing wrong with it, but then Democrats that were unfortunately placed in a position of trust freaked out, worried that if the Ukrainians investigated corruption it might hurt their party and they picked party over country by starting this whole mess.
Protecting the false reputation of Joe Biden was more important to them than the strategic interest of their country.
A few high profile instances, I have only heard of one. Corruption is rampant in Ukraine surely there was another oligarch or company he could have named but he only choose one. This is not normal behavior for a president and his attorney.
A few high profile instances, I have only heard of one. Corruption is rampant in Ukraine surely there was another oligarch or company he could have named but he only choose one. This is not normal behavior for a president and his attorney.
Well that's probably because you've only been listening to propaganda and didn't actually read the contents of the phone call for yourself. Get on that and get back to me.
This ^^^^ (the bolded word) is Exhibit A for why the whistle blower should be kept anonymous and protected. The WB was acting very much within the law so cannot be a traitor by any stretch of the term. People who use that term to describe Americans who care deeply for the integrity of this country are the ones we need to be worried about.
Why would he testify. His testimony is not relevant to impeachment proceedings. The bigger question is why the white house is blocking everyone's testimony who has knowledge of what actually went on. Why is that?
Are these “ long serving career government professionals “ elected by the people ? They are simply employees , and serve the country at the direction of the Departments they belong to. Departments headed up by elected Government Officials. Their opinions regarding foreign policy and other matters have no more weight than the truck driver delivering milk to the grocery store. They are actually the “ threat to the country “ , because the votes of the people can’t directly remove them.
I am glad you brought this up because it illustrates exactly why we have a whistle blower law. While federal employees do not make policy they are very aware of the laws of the USA and are obligated to report if the laws are not being followed. So they can call 911, so to speak, by blowing a whistle if they see possible criminal activity. Just like 911, someone will look into whether a law has actually been broken. And that is what happened. The WB is not making policy but he/she is telling those in power that there is something they should look into. If there is nothing amiss, the WB notice will be dismissed. But in this case, there was a big stinking pile of dog poo that needed a lot of further investigation because for one thing, Trump and Mulvaney both admitted to it.
[The Dems would not want to hear from Hunter Biden] because they feel no need to entertain a pointless political attack on Trump's 2020 opponents which was the sole purpose for his unlawful suspension of the military aid to Ukraine to begin with?
The allegation that there was something wrong with the call depends ENTIRELY on the Bidens being completely free of wrongdoing. Without testimony from Hunter Biden, it is close to impossible to prove your case.
I am glad you brought this up because it illustrates exactly why we have a whistle blower law. While federal employees do not make policy they are very aware of the laws of the USA and are obligated to report if the laws are not being followed. So they can call 911, so to speak, by blowing a whistle if they see possible criminal activity. J
No, it's not what happened. Ciaramella pretended to be a whsitleblower by ILLEGALLY submitting a report to an inspector general who ILLEGALLY tried to pass it through to Congress.
Because the "Whistleblower" was a key contributer to this series of assertions and the President has a constitutional right to confront his accusers. Also, there is more to this than just what is in the transcripts, including what is it that motivated the "Whistleblower" to initiate this process.
That needs to be explored and documented, in public, on the official record. Obviously the Democrats do not want that, and Senator Graham in the article in the OP goes on to discuss some of the reasons why they do not want this explored.
This is all going to be very bad for the Democrat left supporting deep state operatives and also for Joe and Hunter Biden.
We have whistleblower laws for a reason.
There’s no such thing as a right to confront a whistleblower. That’s unprecedented. The idea of confronting a whistleblower is absurd on its face.
The whistleblower is irrelevant at this point. His or her story has already checked out.
No doubt, you would quite strongly disagree if the president was Democrat, rather than Republican. Right? Then an impeachment would be quite sorely needed. No Democrat president should seek foreign help in finding dirt on his Republican rival. It's a serious crime, bordering on treason. It's how the game of politics works.
Democrats have sought foreign help overseas before the 2016 election in Ukraine and other countries and continue to do so and have launched a thousand politically motivated fake investigations for political purposes.
I don't support any impeachments during my lifetime including Nixon or Clinton...if you don't like a President's policies, don't vote for him next time.
No, it's not what happened. Ciaramella pretended to be a whsitleblower by ILLEGALLY submitting a report to an inspector general who ILLEGALLY tried to pass it through to Congress.
I suggest you write a letter to AG Barr and tell him about this as he seems unaware.
At any rate at this point it matters not one wit how the House became aware of Trump's crimes. All that matters is that there was a crime and they have the evidence to impeach and the evidence does not need or include testimony from the whistle blower.
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.
