Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

AAAintheBeltway said:
Yet no one who was actually involved in this saw anything improper. Not the CIA people, not the Ambassador, not Trump's envoys, not the Ukraine PM.

The claim apparently is that someone who was there, the assumption being they are CIA, told this other person about the call. That seems to qualify as a firing offense right there, so it is also important to find out who the leaker was.

Another possibility is that no one leaked the call contents. Rather, this whistleblower received them from an outside party, eg Chinese intelligence. The mere possibility of that is alarming enough to warrant an intensive investigation.
More...

Buddy, your missing one small detail, Trumps own inspector general determined the complaint to be urgent and credible. What are you arguing?
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
I see, so if the statute requires or specifies certain conditions then that means this person must be following them? Uh, huh. work on that a bit.

Doesnt apply in a criminal or impeachment proceeding anyway. The whistleblower act does not prevent disclosure where it is necessary. It calls for protection to the extent possible and then taking steps to protect a persons job if they are outed in the process.
More...

I don’t need to work on anything. This not an overly technical process. Have info on wrongdoing, report wrong doing to IG.

Done in complete compliance and deemed uregwnt and credible. What you guys are arguing is totally made up nonsense.

The whistleblower in this case has no material evidence, what purpose as a witness would they serve?

I think you guys are mixing this up with a criminal complaint. These two things are not the same.
 
Tsing Tao said:
If the issue is that the protection for whistleblowers isn't sufficient, I think we should work that. But every person has a right to know who their accuser is. Otherwise how can we know that the facts surrounding the case are true if there is no cross examination of the witness??
More...
The whole point of having whistleblowers is to protect them from the powerful people they accuse. Anonymous witnesses are allowed in trials as long as prosecutors can prove that testimony puts them in danger, I think the most powerful man in the world with a pattern of seeking revenge who is also over the agency you work for qualifies.
 
UsualName said:
Buddy, your missing one small detail, Trumps own inspector general determined the complaint to be urgent and credible. What are you arguing?
More...


So he determined that it needed to be brought forth, which he did.

Now we want to examine it and the supporting allegations and the people making them.
 
Democrats until now refuse to vote for impeachment in an effort to try this by publicity without casting any actual votes which would be on record! It is also, an effort to deny President Donald Trump of due process and they run it like the communist kangaroo courts! US voters will not forget this come November 8, 2020!
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
So he determined that it needed to be brought forth, which he did.

Now we want to examine it and the supporting allegations and the people making them.
More...

Well we know you want to examine the whistleblower because you think by attacking their character it will undermine the complaint but that is precisely why they are protected.

If this whistleblower is outed through anyone but themselves the whistleblower act is basically void. No one will report corruption if it is a guarantee that their life will be completely destroyed.

We need federal employees to safely be able to report abuses and for that to happen they must be protected.
 
UsualName said:
Well we know you want to examine the whistleblower because you think by attacking their character it will undermine the complaint but that is precisely why they are protected.

.
More...


Yes, I want to develop complete knowledge of the origins and motivations and connections and background of the spy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top