The People's House Openly Examines Misconduct: Happy Trump Impeachment Hearings Day!!

PoliTalker said:
I heard Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana (sits on the Judicary Committee) commenting about the impeachment today. My isn't he a purely partisan disgrace to Congress. Refuses to acknowledge that there is any problem with the President's conduct, and relentlessly attacked Democrats, and did it all with a smooth talking little smirky look on his face.

He looked like the personification of pure greed and absolute loyalty to President Trump over the US Constitution. Apparently his oath of office was just some meaningless words he had to say to get in on the take.

The Judiciary hearings promise to be quite the spectacle, considering you've got this guy Johnson on there, Matt Gaetz of Florida, and Jim Jordan, whom we've already seen enough of his antics to know how blindly partisan he is.

Between them I'm sure there will be plenty of disgrace to spread around.

And more!
Click to expand...

What’s your take on Schiff lying about the WB law lol?
 
RB 60 said:
You must be the only one on the right that Polibabble doesn't have on ignore. You're special :awesome:
Click to expand...

He/she is at least respectful so I try to reciprocate lol.

Not to mention there’s only a handful of lefties you can get an actual debate out of, so yeah.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Several times Schiff has made the false claim that the WB’s identity is covered under the WB law.

I can’t seem to find where the law says that.
Click to expand...

I am not familiar with that law.

The reason the WB identity is being protected should be obvious. Fanatical and potentially violent Trump fans would seek retribution and endanger the WB's life, and their family. Trump fans have a record of including some pretty violent people.

Also, the President himself tweeted a reference to people like being linked to traitors and that traitors in the past have faced execution.

Talking about the WB and mentioning execution in a tweet can be interpreted as a threat to their life.

This could easily been seen as a dog whistle coded message to violent Trump supporters to endanger the WB's life.

We are witnessing the slick way the master conman works. He gets other people to do his dirty work through innuendo and suggestion. It's is all designed to make sure there is no clear trail back to Trump.
 
its clear under the burden of the evidence it clearly shows he committed Bribery


its now all down to just how corrupt the republican party members are
 
Republicans are vainly trying to establish that the President did not tie aid to the proposed Biden investigations announcement. Only problem is that has already been well established and corroborated.

Trying to put words in Sondland's mouth, looking for one quote to hang on.

The only thing they can't explain was why the aid was withheld.
 
It was amusing that Sondland, who is not the Ambassador to Ukraine, took offense at his efforts being called part of an irregular channel of diplomacy. And here he is, admittedly calling himself one of The Three Amigos who worked on diplomacy with Ukraine OUTSIDE OF THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL THROUGH THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

Ambassador Taylor, the ACTUAL Ambassador to Ukraine, was spot-on to refer to efforts which did not include him as an IRREGULAR CHANNEL.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



I am not familiar with that law.

The reason the WB identity is being protected should be obvious. Fanatical and potentially violent Trump fans would seek retribution and endanger the WB's life, and their family. Trump fans have a record of including some pretty violent people.

Also, the President himself tweeted a reference to people like being linked to traitors and that traitors in the past have faced execution.

Talking about the WB and mentioning execution in a tweet can be interpreted as a threat to their life.

This could easily been seen as a dog whistle coded message to violent Trump supporters to endanger the WB's life.

We are witnessing the slick way the master conman works. He gets other people to do his dirty work through innuendo and suggestion. It's is all designed to make sure there is no clear trail back to Trump.
Click to expand...

Well, I’ve read the law and there’s nothing in it about protecting the WB from being revealed lol.

So the question remains why Schiff felt compelled to lie about it. If he wanted to say they wanted to protect the WB from death threats or whatever why didn’t he just say so?

It’s highly likely Schiff doesn’t want anyone talking to the WB. If Democrats ever vote to send articles to the Senate, they will subpoena the WB and he won’t be able to hide behind the WB law. They will also subpoena Hunter Biden.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Well, I’ve read the law and there’s nothing in it about protecting the WB from being revealed lol.

So the question remains why Schiff felt compelled to lie about it. If he wanted to say they wanted to protect the WB from death threats or whatever why didn’t he just say so?

It’s highly likely Schiff doesn’t want anyone talking to the WB. If Democrats ever vote to send articles to the Senate, they will subpoena the WB and he won’t be able to hide behind the WB law. They will also subpoena Hunter Biden.
Click to expand...

Republicans have the offer on the table to ask written questions of the WB.

Poof, there goes that argument.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
It’s not an argument: Schiff lied about the WB being protected by the WB law.
Click to expand...

An argument doesn't have to be a bad thing. I am happy to argue with you because you are careful to do it in a respectful way, which is greatly appreciated.

You have provided no quote of what Chairman Schiff said, so it's difficult to respond with accuracy to that.

I do understand that there is a law protecting a WB, and that there is a reason for such a law, which only makes sense. A WB is more likely to come forward and expose wrongdoing if they are made to feel that they will not face retribution for doing so.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



An argument doesn't have to be a bad thing. I am happy to argue with you because you are careful to do it in a respectful way, which is greatly appreciated.

You have provided no quote of what Chairman Schiff said, so it's difficult to respond with accuracy to that.

I do understand that there is a law protecting a WB, and that there is a reason for such a law, which only makes sense. A WB is more likely to come forward and expose wrongdoing if they are made to feel that they will not face retribution for doing so.
Click to expand...

The WB law only pertains to retribution from the employer. It’s says nothing about guaranteed anonymity.

“The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower.” [Schiff]

That is a lie. Schiff doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt for being simply mistaken—he’s a member of Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top