The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[kalm]

Yeah, and Trump is running circles around them.

Yep and Pelosi can’t get enough votes. Another win for Trump and another loss for the haters.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Does she have to go move forward?

[CAA Flagship]

Yep and Pelosi can’t get enough votes. Another win for Trump and another loss for the haters.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Does she have to go move forward?

Wut?

[kalm]

Does she have to go move forward?

Wut?

Sorry.

She does she need to put it before a floor vote to proceed?

[CID1990]

Wut?

Sorry.

She does she need to put it before a floor vote to proceed?

No she doesn’t. The House makes the rules.

But given that the precedent in previous impeachments is to have a formal vote to proceed (and is parliamentary procedure 101).. Pelosi’s actions here make it look like she’s reconsidering the wisdom behind impeachment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Sorry.

She does she need to put it before a floor vote to proceed?

No she doesn’t. The House makes the rules.

But given that the precedent in previous impeachments is to have a formal vote to proceed (and is parliamentary procedure 101).. Pelosi’s actions here make it look like she’s reconsidering the wisdom behind impeachment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Namely, the need to preserve the political careers of the “moderate” Donks who won in 2018 in districts carried by Drumpf.

[CID1990]

No she doesn’t. The House makes the rules.

But given that the precedent in previous impeachments is to have a formal vote to proceed (and is parliamentary procedure 101).. Pelosi’s actions here make it look like she’s reconsidering the wisdom behind impeachment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Namely, the need to preserve the political careers of the “moderate” Donks who won in 2018 in districts carried by Drumpf.

The Squat is going to support primaries for all those moderates anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JoltinJoe]

Pat Cippilone's legal strategy is pretty clear at this point. His letter makes the argument the failure to hold an authorization vote before conducting an impeachment investigation invalidates the process. When the House's impeachment charges reach the Senate, he will make a motion to dismiss the charges, without trial, on this basis. He needs McConnell to deliver 51 votes for dismissal.

[CAA Flagship]

Wut?

Sorry.

She does she need to put it before a floor vote to proceed?

You OK?

[css75]

The next hoax begins in 5,4,3.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

Moving goalposts...it's the Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax all over again.

Paging jellybelly...oh wait, this is his thread too.

Why would they need the whistleblower if they have the actual transcripts and the fact they were hidden?

Oh now the whistleblower isn't needed...mmkay...

[kalm]

John Bolton...Patriot!



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna10 ... ssion=true

[kalm]

Why would they need the whistleblower if they have the actual transcripts and the fact they were hidden?

Oh now the whistleblower isn't needed...mmkay...

You didn’t answer the question. They have 6 witnesses the WB cited in his report.

[SDHornet]

when you say 'leakers', are you also referring to whistleblowers?

Referring to those, who's job it is to keep information, but don't keep said information to themselves.

Yup, this was always a sham. You know it's a sham when leftists write articles on it themselves. Here's kalm's boy, Matt Taibbi in a Rollingstones article pointing out why this new nothingburger was a farce from the jump.

That last detail caught the eye of Kiriakou, a former CIA Counterterrorism official who blew the whistle on the agency’s torture program.

“It took me and my lawyers a full year to get [the media] to stop calling me ‘CIA Leaker John Kirakou,” he says. “That’s how long it took for me to be called a whistleblower.”

Kirakou’s crime was talking to ABC News and the New York Times about the CIA’s torture program. For talking to American journalists about the CIA, our federal government charged Kiriakou with espionage. That absurd count was ultimately dropped, but he still did 23 months at FCI Loretto in Western Pennsylvania.

When Kiriakou first saw the “whistleblower complaint,” his immediate reaction was to wonder what kind of “CIA officer” the person in question was. “If you spend a career in the CIA, you see all kinds of subterfuge and lies and crime,” he says. “This person went through a whole career and this is the thing he objects to?”  

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ng-895529/

[SDHornet]

Triple bwahaha! No floor vote, says Pelosi.
Apparently impeachment will be a double secret process. Fail. And fail for everyone on this board who bought into this sham process.

As the great Greta Thunberg would say, "How dare you!"

I don't think a floor vote matters - just sit back and let the CIA do their thing.

Which agency was among the very first that Trump picked a fight with?

Which agency changes nation's governments for a living?

So at least you acknowledge there is a "Deep State" at work here. Speaking of which, interested read by kalm's boy, Matt Taibbi last week. 
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup  

[SDHornet]

Oh now the whistleblower isn't needed...mmkay...

You didn’t answer the question. They have 6 witnesses the WB cited in his report.

So none of them are needed? Mmkay.

[SDHornet]

Triple bwahaha! No floor vote, says Pelosi.
Apparently impeachment will be a double secret process. Fail. And fail for everyone on this board who bought into this sham process.

As the great Greta Thunberg would say, "How dare you!"

The left/establishment shills has been angling/running on impeachment since November 2016. Now that Pelosi ain't going to bring it to a vote, I can't imagine the Leftists being too pleased.

[GannonFan]

Pat Cippilone's legal strategy is pretty clear at this point. His letter makes the argument the failure to hold an authorization vote before conducting an impeachment investigation invalidates the process. When the House's impeachment charges reach the Senate, he will make a motion to dismiss the charges, without trial, on this basis. He needs McConnell to deliver 51 votes for dismissal.

Not a terrible strategy when all is said and done. Running away from past precedent on how these things are done and pretending it to be something other than a political maneuver to both try to protect vulnerable swing state reps while also preventing GOP'ers in the House from stealing the limelight is a very fine political needle to be threading. It may give some cover to the Dems who need it but it certainly allows the GOP more ammo to circle the wagons with. Trump may actually like the chance to be the first impeached President to win reelection. That would be par for the course in this day and age of political weirdness.

[Ivytalk]

I don't think a floor vote matters - just sit back and let the CIA do their thing.

Which agency was among the very first that Trump picked a fight with?

Which agency changes nation's governments for a living?

So at least you acknowledge there is a "Deep State" at work here. Speaking of which, interested read by kalm's boy, Matt Taibbi last week. 
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup  

“Lunatic spookworld brand of politics” sure seems to be out there.

[GannonFan]

So at least you acknowledge there is a "Deep State" at work here. Speaking of which, interested read by kalm's boy, Matt Taibbi last week. 
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup  

“Lunatic spookworld brand of politics” sure seems to be out there.

Yikes, I just read that article and I'm in fear of the banana republic coming into play tomorrow or the day after.

My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump.

I think he nails it on the head with this premise early on. Trump is absolutely abhorrent, and I wouldn't vote for him for any elected position. no matter how inconsequential, and certainly not something as consequential as the Presidency. But there's a lot of truth to the idea that the Resistance is far more dangerous than anything Trump can do. We investigated a political campaign of a rival party during an election, we then passed a slew of dubious information about that candidate throughout government on the way out to ensure that it would be there and shared publicly once he takes office, as Taibbi points out the intelligence agencies made sure the President knew this was out there, and we've spent every waking moment of the current Presidency attempting to remove that President from office. I don't see how any of that is good, especially if it sets the precedent of this happening over and over again in future presidencies. The TDS thing and the Resistance are funny to a point, but when they spill over into irrational and maniacal obsession with removing a President at all costs, that's where I think it is more worrisome than a morally and intellectually devoid person being President. We vote on him next November - that's when the voters can impeach and remove him from office, if they so choose. And we don't need to make up stuff or inflate stuff to do it.

[Pwns]

This right here pretty much sums it up...

The real problem would be the precedent of a de facto intelligence community veto over elections, using the lunatic spookworld brand of politics that has dominated the last three years of anti-Trump agitation.

And it's not going to end with Trump or even Republican presidents.

[UNI88]

“Lunatic spookworld brand of politics” sure seems to be out there.

Yikes, I just read that article and I'm in fear of the banana republic coming into play tomorrow or the day after.

My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump.

I think he nails it on the head with this premise early on. Trump is absolutely abhorrent, and I wouldn't vote for him for any elected position. no matter how inconsequential, and certainly not something as consequential as the Presidency. But there's a lot of truth to the idea that the Resistance is far more dangerous than anything Trump can do. We investigated a political campaign of a rival party during an election, we then passed a slew of dubious information about that candidate throughout government on the way out to ensure that it would be there and shared publicly once he takes office, as Taibbi points out the intelligence agencies made sure the President knew this was out there, and we've spent every waking moment of the current Presidency attempting to remove that President from office. I don't see how any of that is good, especially if it sets the precedent of this happening over and over again in future presidencies. The TDS thing and the Resistance are funny to a point, but when they spill over into irrational and maniacal obsession with removing a President at all costs, that's where I think it is more worrisome than a morally and intellectually devoid person being President. We vote on him next November - that's when the voters can impeach and remove him from office, if they so choose. And we don't need to make up stuff or inflate stuff to do it.

Well put Ganny. Cue JSO to refute every point with his 100% objective information.

[Skjellyfetti]

Running away from past precedent on how these things are done

Where's the precedent?

The entire House voted on Nixon's impeachment inquiry in February of 1974. The House Judiciary committee began impeachment hearings in October 1973. Were the Judiciary hearings before the full House voted invalid? Did anyone make that argument at the time?

[89Hen]

Where's the precedent?

In da white house

[css75]

Running away from past precedent on how these things are done

Where's the precedent?

The entire House voted on Nixon's impeachment inquiry in February of 1974. The House Judiciary committee began impeachment hearings in October 1973. Were the Judiciary hearings before the full House voted invalid? Did anyone make that argument at the time?

Jelly, give it up, you can close the barn door but that horse is fifteen miles down the road, Again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

“Lunatic spookworld brand of politics” sure seems to be out there.

Yikes, I just read that article and I'm in fear of the banana republic coming into play tomorrow or the day after.

My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump.

I think he nails it on the head with this premise early on. Trump is absolutely abhorrent, and I wouldn't vote for him for any elected position. no matter how inconsequential, and certainly not something as consequential as the Presidency. But there's a lot of truth to the idea that the Resistance is far more dangerous than anything Trump can do. We investigated a political campaign of a rival party during an election, we then passed a slew of dubious information about that candidate throughout government on the way out to ensure that it would be there and shared publicly once he takes office, as Taibbi points out the intelligence agencies made sure the President knew this was out there, and we've spent every waking moment of the current Presidency attempting to remove that President from office. I don't see how any of that is good, especially if it sets the precedent of this happening over and over again in future presidencies. The TDS thing and the Resistance are funny to a point, but when they spill over into irrational and maniacal obsession with removing a President at all costs, that's where I think it is more worrisome than a morally and intellectually devoid person being President. We vote on him next November - that's when the voters can impeach and remove him from office, if they so choose. And we don't need to make up stuff or inflate stuff to do it.

Question: If the Resistance is "far more dangerous than anything Trump can do" why would you not vote for him, given that his opponent will most decidedly be from said Resistance?