If you follow the series of events, Trump was attacked over Ukraine because he dared to go after one of the DNC's top people:  Joe Biden.  In DC, that's just not done.

Once Joe declared is candidacy, the Party ramped up their efforts to prop him up and protect him.  Why else would his poll numbers remain so far ahead of others after all the gaffs and scandals?

If Joe gets the nomination, Trump will eat his lunch.  He doesn't need any foreign, or domestic, "interference" to win the election.

Now that the Party has smeared the Ukrainian president as a liar and Trump puppet who'll say anything for Trump, it puts a negative spin on any investigation into Biden.

They are terrified and panicking.  It shows.

Don't forget who else has children working in Ukraine power companies as well.

I personally believe the announcement of the continuation of impeaching the president on the heels of the announcement that Durham is criminally investigating Brennan is no coincidence. Brennan’s boss was Obama. I believe the closer Durham gets to the top the more virulent the attack on Trump is going to get. And the more unhinged the Dems will become. Let’s face it, a grand jury indictment was just unveiled for 8 defendants that collected illegal campaign funds and shoveled them over to Hillary and Schiff (as well as others) during the 2016 election. Getting a little too close for comfort?

But if that isn’t already too close for comfort, James Clapper admitted in an interview that the spying on Trump probably would have never happened if it were not for President Obama approval of it. Also, Judicial Watch has some documentation already from FOIA requests showing at the very least Obama knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Durham is going to find out the truth, and I think Obama was in deep in this and he is going down as well as Brennan, Hillary and Comey. Clapper is a weasel and will probably fold and sing like a parrot. Actually, he already has started:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/24/clapper_obama_ordered_the_intelligence_assessment_that_resulted_in_mueller_investigation.html

I personally believe the announcement of the continuation of impeaching the president on the heels of the announcement that Durham is criminally investigating Brennan is no coincidence. Brennan’s boss was Obama. I believe the closer Durham gets to the top the more virulent the attack on Trump is going to get. And the more unhinged the Dems will become. Let’s face it, a grand jury indictment was just unveiled for 8 defendants that collected illegal campaign funds and shoveled them over to Hillary and Schiff (as well as others) during the 2016 election. Getting a little too close for comfort?

But if that isn’t already too close for comfort, James Clapper admitted in an interview that the spying on Trump probably would have never happened if it were not for President Obama approval of it. Also, Judicial Watch has some documentation already from FOIA requests showing at the very least Obama knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Durham is going to find out the truth, and I think Obama was in deep in this and he is going down as well as Brennan, Hillary and Comey. Clapper is a weasel and will probably fold and sing like a parrot. Actually, he already has started:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/24/clapper_obama_ordered_the_intelligence_assessment_that_resulted_in_mueller_investigation.html

So, now that Obama can't be impeached for using the power of his office to perform illegal surveillance on a member of the GOP nominee's campaign, maybe an indictment would be feasible?  He violated a lot of people's Constitutional rights using a DNC-commissioned pack of lies as the basis.

Obama also lied about knowing Clinton had a private email server and wasn't using the State Department address she was required to use.

They called the Trump surveillance "matter" a counter-intelligence investigation.

Seems appropriate, since all the facts they used ran counter to any intelligent justification.   

I personally believe the announcement of the continuation of impeaching the president on the heels of the announcement that Durham is criminally investigating Brennan is no coincidence. Brennan’s boss was Obama. I believe the closer Durham gets to the top the more virulent the attack on Trump is going to get. And the more unhinged the Dems will become. Let’s face it, a grand jury indictment was just unveiled for 8 defendants that collected illegal campaign funds and shoveled them over to Hillary and Schiff (as well as others) during the 2016 election. Getting a little too close for comfort?

But if that isn’t already too close for comfort, James Clapper admitted in an interview that the spying on Trump probably would have never happened if it were not for President Obama approval of it. Also, Judicial Watch has some documentation already from FOIA requests showing at the very least Obama knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Durham is going to find out the truth, and I think Obama was in deep in this and he is going down as well as Brennan, Hillary and Comey. Clapper is a weasel and will probably fold and sing like a parrot. Actually, he already has started:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/24/clapper_obama_ordered_the_intelligence_assessment_that_resulted_in_mueller_investigation.html

I failed to mention that the illegal campaign funds were all from foreign donors. Talk about a foreign entity interfering in our 2016 election! 

I failed to mention that the illegal campaign funds were all from foreign donors. Talk about a foreign entity interfering in our 2016 election! 

One of the Obama "scandal-free scandals" that never made it into the mainstream media was about his campaign contribution servers.

They were set up in China, and unlike Romney's donation software, Obama's didn't verify the IP you connected from was a US-based IP.

The general conclusion was that anyone from any country could make donations under any assumed name, and the records could never tie back the the donor's actual location.

I had a hard time believing that was never investigated until I saw what a bunch of lying, cheating, criminal minded asshats were working under Obama in the Justice Department.

I'm still waiting to find out where the missing $6B under Secretary of State Clinton went.

The whole thing is moot already.  The whistle blower made a 'complaint', the 'authorities' are supposed to follow up and investigate, the original complaint turned up ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME.

I think that is an inaccurate representation, they found circumstantial evidence. It is harder to build a case on circumstantial evidence of course and arguably there wasn't enough to prove a crime however there was certainly evidence.

That's not the issue. 

Investigate the complaint, but don't pretend the person has some right to anonymity AFTER HIS ACCUSATION BECOMES A FEDERAL CASE.

it's not about violating a policy.  It's about sticking your head out to talk to a Congressional staff, then afterward expecting special protections because you went to the IG.

Congress is not bound by the laws that govern the IG.  Schiff never did produce that statute he said protected the non-whistle-blower-informant's identity.

Even if there is no law protecting the whistleblowers immunity, there is also no need to identify the whistleblower either. The whistle blower can remain anonymous and it really doesn't change much.

But my main point has always been that no matter what the whistleblower did right or wrong procedure wise, the complaint should still have been investigated.

Are you serious?

Who is said whistleblower? Has he/she/it provide direct evidence of what it witnessed?

How can anyone “provably false” something that one allegedly hear the grapevine?

You’re arguing based on “what if’s”. Again, how about proceeding based on FACTS and EVIDENCE?

The whistleblower does not have to have direct evidence of a crime. 3rd part reporting is common to law enforcement. If a 911 dispatcher got a call from someone saying that their friend told them there was a murder, the police are still going to get sent and investigate. So even if a whistleblower did not witness the alleged crime themselves but heard it from someone else, they can still initiate a report and it should be taken seriously. Subsequent investigation by the appropriate authorities is what will hopefully yield relevant facts and evidence to verify or dispute the allegation.

....I'm still waiting to find out where the missing $6B under Secretary of State Clinton went.

Ugly pants suits and Epstein (didin’t kill himself). 

Even if there is no law protecting the whistleblowers immunity, there is also no need to identify the whistleblower either. The whistle blower can remain anonymous and it really doesn't change much.

But my main point has always been that no matter what the whistleblower did right or wrong procedure wise, the complaint should still have been investigated.

Wrong.

Everyone accused of a crime (or in this case, impeachable acts) has a fundamental right to face their accuser.  Why?

So the defendant & his lawyers can explore bias, other motives for possibly lying, their past (serial accuser?), and the verocity of their facts.  it allows the defense to cross-examine the accuser, which has a multitude of potential truth-finding benefits. 

Reading a lawyer-created complaint is not the same as asking the accuser clarification questions or requesting answers for inconsistencies between the written complaint, depositions, public statements if any, and other witness testimonies.

So, unless you are afraid the witness' testimony would be bad for your case, there is no reason to not know their identity.  The accused has rights.  Accusers have statutory protections against retaliation, but not against public identification.

So, unless you are afraid the witness' testimony would be bad for your case, there is no reason to not know their identity.  The accused has rights.  Accusers have statutory protections against retaliation, but not against public identification.

The democrats have a desperate need to hide this POS.

The Ukraine Whistleblower is NOT a Whistleblower by any definition and is not protected by any whistleblower laws because he skirted the law by going to Schiff first. The Whistleblower laws do not apply to him. Which IMHO would make the entire impeachment a nothingburger since the entire impeachment was supposedly set off by the original complaint.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/ukraine-whistleblower-appears-skirt-law-going-straight-rep-

And of course it appears that the so called Ukraine Whistleblower who really is NOT a whistleblower and is NOT protected by any whistleblower laws, is illegally soliciting funds indirectly thru GoFundMe.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/complaint-alleges-whistleblower-who-touched-off-impeachment-inquiry-violated-federal-law/

There is a very good reason why the Dems are trying so hard to protect him is because Schiff broke the law as well. Instead of following the whistleblower laws, Schiff basically inserted himself directly into the impeachment investigation as a witness by speaking to the complainant first and not following the laws. Anyone who is a witness in an investigation cannot also head up the investigation. Talk about a conflict of interest. If there is a trial in the senate, Schiff and the complainant need to be called as witnesses. Based on that alone the Senate trial should declare the impeachment a sham and start an investigation into Schiff.

The Ukraine Whistleblower is NOT a Whistleblower by any definition and is not protected by any whistleblower laws because he skirted the law by going to Schiff first. The Whistleblower laws do not apply to him. Which IMHO would make the entire impeachment a nothingburger since the entire impeachment was supposedly set off by the original complaint.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/ukraine-whistleblower-appears-skirt-law-going-straight-rep-

And of course it appears that the so called Ukraine Whistleblower who really is NOT a whistleblower and is NOT protected by any whistleblower laws, is illegally soliciting funds indirectly thru GoFundMe.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/complaint-alleges-whistleblower-who-touched-off-impeachment-inquiry-violated-federal-law/

There is a very good reason why the Dems are trying so hard to protect him is because Schiff broke the law as well. Instead of following the whistleblower laws, Schiff basically inserted himself directly into the impeachment investigation as a witness by speaking to the complainant first and not following the laws. Anyone who is a witness in an investigation cannot also head up the investigation. Talk about a conflict of interest. If there is a trial in the senate, Schiff and the complainant need to be called as witnesses. Based on that alone the Senate trial should declare the impeachment a sham and start an investigation into Schiff.

Oh stop it. There you go speaking logically and rationally. There are those apparently want to investigate any whiff of “something” to investigate. They “must be taken seriously”. No accountability for accusers. Same with red flag law. Endless throwing of “what if’s”. Might as well have a show with a segment “things that make you go hmm””. It would be pure comedy except that many other weak minded people seem to follow that line of emotionally driven calls for action. 🙄

Oh stop it. There you go speaking logically and rationally. There are those apparently want to investigate any whiff of “something” to investigate. They “must be taken seriously”. No accountability for accusers. Same with red flag law. Endless throwing of “what if’s”. Might as well have a show with a segment “things that make you go hmm””. It would be pure comedy except that many other weak minded people seem to follow that line of emotionally driven calls for action. 🙄

Sorry, I’ll stop. It’s just so hard to be a Snowflake like one or two members here. I’ll try harder next time. 

GoFundMe is like a book deal, but for non famous people.  Look how much Ford's one raised.

The Ukraine Whistleblower is NOT a Whistleblower by any definition and is not protected by any whistleblower laws because he skirted the law by going to Schiff first. The Whistleblower laws do not apply to him. Which IMHO would make the entire impeachment a nothingburger since the entire impeachment was supposedly set off by the original complaint.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/ukraine-whistleblower-appears-skirt-law-going-straight-rep-

And of course it appears that the so called Ukraine Whistleblower who really is NOT a whistleblower and is NOT protected by any whistleblower laws, is illegally soliciting funds indirectly thru GoFundMe.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/complaint-alleges-whistleblower-who-touched-off-impeachment-inquiry-violated-federal-law/

There is a very good reason why the Dems are trying so hard to protect him is because Schiff broke the law as well. Instead of following the whistleblower laws, Schiff basically inserted himself directly into the impeachment investigation as a witness by speaking to the complainant first and not following the laws. Anyone who is a witness in an investigation cannot also head up the investigation. Talk about a conflict of interest. If there is a trial in the senate, Schiff and the complainant need to be called as witnesses. Based on that alone the Senate trial should declare the impeachment a sham and start an investigation into Schiff.

I made that exact same point in one of my many posts trying to convince EEF that the WB is an informant for the Democrats, not a WB.

Going to Schiff's staff negated any concerns of being outed.  Otherwise, he would have contacted them, or the IG, anonymously as well.  Schiff continues lying, saying he doesn't know the WB's identity.  If he and Pelosi started this whole impeachment farce without having a discussion with the informant, that's a bigger problem than all the Trump actions the media is worried about.  Even the IG who investigated the report said there was evidence of political bias on the complainant's part, and that the complaint lacked substance ... hearsay issues aside.

The informant also "heard from half a dozen other staffers" that the President's request regarding the Bidens was illegal or unethical.  Yet, since the informant is being shielded from scrutiny, we have no idea whether the half a dozen "others" even exist -- nobody can ask him for the names nor interview them for corroboration or more details.

This whole impeachment inquiry was not even close to an investigation.  They let the person who lied about Russian Collusion for years run an inquiry that by all rights should have been (a) done by the Judiciary Committee, (b) assigned to a Special/Independent Counsel, (c) performed by a bipartisan Select Committee, or (d) some combination of those.

To have the Intel Committee run the investigation in secret for more than half the hearings and depositions, leak only what juicy gossip against Trump that Schiff decided to share, then hold hearings for only those witnesses Schiff permitted, and finally have the Judiciary committee vote on impeachment without calling a single fact witness would make the Salem witch trial prosecutors squirm.  One committee chair that hates Trump did the investigating under darkness, another Trump-hating chair had a sham hearing and called for a vote that was only bipartisan in that there were Dems voting against impeachment, and their Congressmen sit with straight faces and say the President had a fair hearing?  LOL!!

I made that exact same point in one of my many posts trying to convince EEF that the WB is an informant for the Democrats, not a WB.

Going to Schiff's staff negated any concerns of being outed.  Otherwise, he would have contacted them, or the IG, anonymously as well.  Schiff continues lying, saying he doesn't know the WB's identity.  If he and Pelosi started this whole impeachment farce without having a discussion with the informant, that's a bigger problem than all the Trump actions the media is worried about.  Even the IG who investigated the report said there was evidence of political bias on the complainant's part, and that the complaint lacked substance ... hearsay issues aside.

The informant also "heard from half a dozen other staffers" that the President's request regarding the Bidens was illegal or unethical.  Yet, since the informant is being shielded from scrutiny, we have no idea whether the half a dozen "others" even exist -- nobody can ask him for the names nor interview them for corroboration or more details.

This whole impeachment inquiry was not even close to an investigation.  They let the person who lied about Russian Collusion for years run an inquiry that by all rights should have been (a) done by the Judiciary Committee, (b) assigned to a Special/Independent Counsel, (c) performed by a bipartisan Select Committee, or (d) some combination of those.

To have the Intel Committee run the investigation in secret for more than half the hearings and depositions, leak only what juicy gossip against Trump that Schiff decided to share, then hold hearings for only those witnesses Schiff permitted, and finally have the Judiciary committee vote on impeachment without calling a single fact witness would make the Salem witch trial prosecutors squirm.  One committee chair that hates Trump did the investigating under darkness, another Trump-hating chair had a sham hearing and called for a vote that was only bipartisan in that there were Dems voting against impeachment, and their Congressmen sit with straight faces and say the President had a fair hearing?  LOL!!

You too! Presenting facts and making a logical and rational argument! You and Inspector must be drinking the same “we live in reality” Kool-Aid...

You too! Presenting facts and making a logical and rational argument! You and Inspector must be drinking the same “we live in reality” Kool-Aid...

What's your point? 

 

What's your point? 

 

clips

I made that exact same point in one of my many posts trying to convince EEF that the WB is an informant for the Democrats, not a WB.

Going to Schiff's staff negated any concerns of being outed.  Otherwise, he would have contacted them, or the IG, anonymously as well.  Schiff continues lying, saying he doesn't know the WB's identity.  If he and Pelosi started this whole impeachment farce without having a discussion with the informant, that's a bigger problem than all the Trump actions the media is worried about.  Even the IG who investigated the report said there was evidence of political bias on the complainant's part, and that the complaint lacked substance ... hearsay issues aside.

The informant also "heard from half a dozen other staffers" that the President's request regarding the Bidens was illegal or unethical.  Yet, since the informant is being shielded from scrutiny, we have no idea whether the half a dozen "others" even exist -- nobody can ask him for the names nor interview them for corroboration or more details.

This whole impeachment inquiry was not even close to an investigation.  They let the person who lied about Russian Collusion for years run an inquiry that by all rights should have been (a) done by the Judiciary Committee, (b) assigned to a Special/Independent Counsel, (c) performed by a bipartisan Select Committee, or (d) some combination of those.

To have the Intel Committee run the investigation in secret for more than half the hearings and depositions, leak only what juicy gossip against Trump that Schiff decided to share, then hold hearings for only those witnesses Schiff permitted, and finally have the Judiciary committee vote on impeachment without calling a single fact witness would make the Salem witch trial prosecutors squirm.  One committee chair that hates Trump did the investigating under darkness, another Trump-hating chair had a sham hearing and called for a vote that was only bipartisan in that there were Dems voting against impeachment, and their Congressmen sit with straight faces and say the President had a fair hearing?  LOL!!

There is no having a decent conversation with that EEF character. If you recall when he first came to the forum he said that he is trying to enlighten everyone by taking the other side of a discussion. Like most of us don’t already know the other side. I call it talking out both sides of his ass. But that is just me. I feel he is degrading people here and treating them like they don’t have the intelligence to understand all sides of a discussion. He tries to show he is intellectually superior to everyone when in fact he makes himself look just the opposite most of the time. He talks down to people and he is very much a narcissist. He is a waste of time trying to have a discussion with. He doesn’t take his side and defend it. He takes all sides to try and enlighten you. WTF is up with that? He also lies quite a bit. He’s not worth my time so I just put him on ignore.

Let’s face it, we know who the informant is. We already know his background and we also know his bias and animus towards Trump. We also know the Dems are trying to keep him from testifying so he and Schiff don’t get into trouble. This plus the fact that he doesn’t have any first hand knowledge of the phone call should easily disqualify his complaint.