and you'll hang with Trump and Rudy...You "made up your own mind" that Adam Schiff is a guy you want to hang with on this, did ya?
View attachment 46174
Mmmmkay....
and you'll hang with Trump and Rudy...You "made up your own mind" that Adam Schiff is a guy you want to hang with on this, did ya?
View attachment 46174
Mmmmkay....
I don't pay any attention to Trump Jr. That link is so old it's starting to smell. Grassley is a champion of the "whistle blower" statute because of his long held mistrust of big government. This guy isn't "whistle blowing" against big government, he's doing it on behalf of big government.You see you think Trump Jr. told you something, he didn't, more bullshit. Read the link about Grassley I just posted.
I don't pay any attention to Trump Jr. That link is so old it's starting to smell. Grassley is a champion of the "whistle blower" statute because of his long held mistrust of big government. This guy isn't "whistle blowing" against big government, he's doing it on behalf of big government.
So you don't see the "evidence" that Vindman and the "whistle blower" conspired to put forth a false narrative about the Trump Zelensky phone call? Vindman was obviously the source of the "whistle blowers" account of the call and, when it was revealed that the "whistle blower" is a rabid left wing DNC operative, Vindman was forced to step forward to try and rescue his attempt to overthrow the POTUS and maintain his homeland's US aid gravy train.He IS the head of the committee, I can't pick'm so don't blame me. I don't look at individuals I look at evidence.
No, I didn't.You just contradicted yourself.
If that is where the truth leads...and you'll hang with Trump and Rudy...
More people than than Vindman corroborate the whistleblowers testimony. The rest of your post was filled with speculation.So you don't see the "evidence" that Vindman and the "whistle blower" conspired to put forth a false narrative about the Trump Zelensky phone call? Vindman was obviously the source of the "whistle blowers" account of the call and, when it was revealed that the "whistle blower" is a rabid left wing DNC operative, Vindman was forced to step forward to try and rescue his attempt to overthrow the POTUS and maintain his homeland's US aid gravy train.
He's also a major tool. You might want to rethink the "evidence."He IS the head of the committee, I can't pick'm so don't blame me. I don't look at individuals I look at evidence.
The evidence speaks for itself.He's also a major tool. You might want to rethink the "evidence."
No, I went directly to GOP hypocrisy. It is a straight line from wingers breaking wiretap laws and conspiring with GOP operatives in order to impeach Clinton and the GOP today whining because they want to break the laws and distract the public from sworn testimony from multiple Trump appointed officials that Trump broke the law.No, you're lost. As usual.
It really doesn't matter. The details of the conversation are in the public record. Vindman's "testimony" is as irrelevant as that of these "more people" you mention. The facts are pretty simple:More people than than Vindman corroborate the whistleblowers testimony. The rest of your post was filled with speculation.
I don't "admire" Trump. I think he is an odious buffoon. But the evidence does speak for itself, and if shows that he is being railroaded.The evidence speaks for itself.
Trump is a "tool" and crook and a liar. You may want to rethink your admiration.
IF? You've already decided. That is the truth.If that is where the truth leads...
You want missiles? I want a favor....I don't "admire" Trump. I think he is an odious buffoon. But the evidence does speak for itself, and if shows that he is being railroaded.
If I were you I wouldn't.then it should be easy for you to cite the relevant law, link to it, and copy the text here which specifically states the identity of the whistleblower is protected by law.
We'll wait.........
So it takes a "thinker" to actively be wrong.Actually, it takes a "thinker" to question the official narrative. It certainly doesn't take a "thinker" to mindlessly parrot the DNC/"mainstream" media narratives...
And you HAVENT already decided? ROFLMFAOIF? You've already decided. That is the truth.
We should always work to respect whistleblowers’ requests for confidentiality....does NOT equal 'identity protected under law'.
Does that mean Republican trash can threaten his life with impunity?We should always work to respect whistleblowers’ requests for confidentiality....does NOT equal 'identity protected under law'.
These people think everyone is as dumb as the average DemocRAT. These witnesses have essentially testified that they think Trump is horrible and they disagree with what he said on the phone. That means nothing, legally. I suspect even Schitt knows that and just hopes enough whining about Trump will get the public to support impeachment. To the rational observer, all we are finding out is that Trump's subordinates disagree with Trump's foreign policy and are willing to undermine a president to voice their displeasure.It really doesn't matter. The details of the conversation are in the public record. Vindman's "testimony" is as irrelevant as that of these "more people" you mention. The facts are pretty simple:
1. Asking the Ukrainians to look into potential corruption by Joe Biden is not illegal, because it really isn't "election meddling" - for one because Biden won't be the nominee and also because if Biden did nothing, no harm no foul and if he did something, then it's something we should know.
2. Zelensky has said he had no idea the aid was being withheld, and in fact, felt no pressure to do anything.
3. The aid was in fact released and the investigation in fact did not occur.
4. Trump has sold Ukraine lethal weaponry, whereas Obama did not, so the idea that Trump is somehow doing Putin's bidding here is absurd.
5. Vindman's statement makes it clear that he is, in fact, operating in violation of the oath he took as a military officer, and displays clear evidence that he is in fact operating on behalf of a foreign government.
6. Anyone who looks at the (lack of) evidence behind the Russian "collusion" narrative, and then somehow finds nothing to question in this matter is not an unbiased observer.