D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
We've seen plenty of allegations. So what?Congress will be the ones making the allegations at the end of the day.
We've seen plenty of allegations. So what?Congress will be the ones making the allegations at the end of the day.
Sure. In writing is fine. Can I write it though?
You asked for a 1st hand account and you received it.The 2nd whistleblower was the one who told the first one.
So that was irrelevant.
Really? Where?You asked for a 1st hand account and you received it.
At the end of the day the inquiry will have the evidence to support the allegations.We've seen plenty of allegations. So what?
lieLike they did the first one.
Like "collusion"?At the end of the day the inquiry will have the evidence to support the allegations.
Yes, congress votes on the charges, the senate needs 2/3 to remove from office, and the John Roberts has to preside over the Senate.it's not a randomly occuring process... correct? there is some order and thresholds to it, yes?
the VP would preside over the senate, unless the VP is impeached him/herself...Yes, congress votes on the charges, the senate needs 2/3 to remove from office, and the John Roberts has to preside over the Senate.
Other than that there are no rules.
You asked for a 1st hand account and you received it.
If only right-wingers wouldn't endanger the whistleblower's career and life.the VP would preside over the senate, unless the VP is impeached him/herself...
which is all good n dandy. methinks we need to know that there is an accuser... a real one..
we're not going to constitutional hell in a handbasket on the fictional word of a fictional person..
that'd be some inglorious end to the country...
No, its corroboration.But it wasn't.
It was a feedback loop. The second whistleblower is actually the source for the first whistleblower , which means it’s all the same thing.
So the second whistleblower is actually the first, is actually the original.
The second whistleblower informs the first. The first whistleblower says what the second whistleblower is going to say, which feeds the loop
please elaborate..If only right-wingers wouldn't endanger the whistleblower's career and life.
At the beginning of the day, the dishonesty of the accuser affects everything discovered as a result.At the end of the day the inquiry will have the evidence to support the allegations.
The way to prove the accuser is dishonest is to focus on the allegations being made.At the beginning of the day, the dishonesty of the accuser affects everything discovered as a result.
The whistleblower needs protections because right-wingers want to destroy his/her career and or life for merely reporting wrong-doing.please elaborate..
The accuser has already proven to be dishonest and working with fellow DemocRATS to interfere with the 2020 election.The way to prove the accuser is dishonest is to focus on the allegations being made.
isnt that what the whistleblower is also doing...The whistleblower needs protections because right-wingers want to destroy his/her career and or life for merely reporting wrong-doing.
Oddly Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t get the same protection, and Blasey Ford is alive and wellThe whistleblower needs protections because right-wingers want to destroy his/her career and or life for merely reporting wrong-doing.
The whistleblower needs protections because right-wingers want to destroy his/her career and or life for merely reporting wrong-doing.