J Town

35 minutes ago, Tug said:

Unfortunately many trump supporters don’t care that Donald is a mentally ill idiot and or straight up tool for putin as long as they think they’re getting one over on the dems sad 

As one TV member previously posted, he didn't care if Trump took away lunches from poor school children as long as his business continued to do well. Judas couldn't have said it better himself. 30 pieces of silver is 30 pieces of silver.

When was the last time you heard ANY credible news source report "Gee, this looks like Trump might be innocent?" Even Trump is now starting to say there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

It's been speculated that the whistle blower is one Eric Ciaramella.  I remember so long ago when this whole thing started and I kept making the point that the whistle blower's identity is important.  And the libs would just blow it off saying that who he was didn't matter.  Well, if it is Eric Ciaramella that would be one helluva bombshell.  And very, very bad for the Dems.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/pinnacle-of-irresponsibility-attorneys-decline-to-confirm-cia-officer-eric-ciaramella-is-whistleblower

Firchrissake, the whistleblower's id is now a moot point. Even if Krusty the Clown, or Jack the Ripper, or Casper the friendly ghost reports a fire, the fire department doesn't give a tinker's damn who called it in. They have the smoke, they have the fire, now move on.

1 hour ago, Dap said:

What "false" statement? Everything the whistleblower claimed has been more than substantiated by many other witnesses.

Again, Trump supporters are in a deep state of denial/desperation. The walls are closing in, the truth is becoming clear in spite of their attempts to obstruct or smear the good names of the witnesses, and once this goes live (hopefully prime time) there will be no legitimate excuses.

1 hour ago, Becker said:

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, I had trouble with that one, too. Kinda destroys all credibility.

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

Kurds have been in that position long before Trump came along. Last I heard was Biden boasting about his quid pro quo 6 hours before his flight out of Kiev but you don't seem to mind that.

 

Let's see what 2020 brings but one things for sure Dems are scared stiff of Trump winning. Many neutrals, like me, would vote for him just to spite the dumb Dems.

You twist words around to avoid the point. The topic is the legality (or lack of) exposing the whistleblower. And all people capable of critical thinking, who can weigh truth vs despicable lies are frightened of another Trump term. These are the people who don't use loaded terms like "dumb Dems."

Just now, BobBKK said:

I think Trump will win with a larger base. The Dems have what?  Russia nothing burgers, Ukraine silliness what's next Estonia?

Ukraine "silliness?" They are a U.S. ally (remember how well that worked out for the Kurds?) under Russian attack at this very moment. Why else would the U.S. give them nearly half a billion dollars in military aid? Trump's base is dwindling, and expect a faster exodus as soon as the hearings go public.

When was the last time you heard any news to the effect of "Oh, gee, that certainly seems to show Trump's innocence?"

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

Source?  link?  this 'person' must be allowed to be cross examined, challenged and questioned like any other person. Hiding behind closed doors in secret sessions is NOT in compliance with fairness OR past precedence.  It is one year from the election why not let the people decide?  or they think they will lose? It won't get past the senate anyhow.

Here is the direct quote:

“The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now,” Trump said.

There are multiple sources, you can look them up to your satisfaction. There is NO cross examination in an inquiry. In a court case, perhaps, but as it stands now, Trump made these threats and is the precise reason we have whistle blower protection laws.

25 minutes ago, wayned said:

If they have been subpoenaed and don't appear, the committee chairmen should immediately charge them with "inherent contempt" and impose a daily fine for each day they fail to appear, say $20,0000/day.  It's their right to do that and would be upheld by the courts.  If they did it once, then the others scheduled to be deposed might just appear rather than be held in contempt and fined.  Or maybe they think that POTUS will pay the daily fine, think again while the bus is driving over them.!

The Republican argument was that, since the impeachment inquiry wasn't "official," they could ignore the subpoenas. Now that they ARE official, what you recommend here is most likely to happen. I seem to recall Barr putting Chelsea Manning in jail for ignoring a subpoena. I believe the same is about to happen to anyone ignoring subpoenas from the instant the hearings go public. I ALSO expect the number of people in favor of impeachment AND removal will start to climb. The same happened when Nixon was impeached. The Republicans fought it, tooth and nail, until the evidence was presented publicly. History will repeat itself.

17 minutes ago, bamboozle said:

and leaking confidential information while working in the whitehouse is treasonous so he is not a whistleblower but a traitor 

NO no no no no! This patriot went up the chain of command and conferred with a U.S. government attorney before making formal complaints. That dog don't hunt; it's a red herring to distract from Trump's crimes.

Remember all those people who ignored subpoenas during Benghazi? Of course you don't cuz they all appeared. Guilty people obstruct.

17 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Pathetic coward. Stop the secrecy, man-up, and come out and tell your story. If this had happened to Clinton all hell would break loose.

Pathetic coward? Trump has publicly threatened him with possible death.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

I think it's more like an over-active imagination.  I doubt that "Trump haters"  will waste time generating alternative fantasies.

Critics of Trump don't NEED to fantasize. We just use facts.

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Should Congress vote to impeach Trump, a trial will be held in the Senate. 

 

At a trial the accused should be allowed to face their accuser.

 

Stop trying to play semantics for political gain.

It's not semantics, it's how the laws are. Desperate Republicans are becoming, as a whole, unhinged. They CAN'T defend using facts so they throw every possible made-up obstacle in the way of the impending impeachment. Guilty people don't obstruct. Remember all those subpoenas Obama ignored? Of course you don't because he gladly complied.

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Naw dude, I get it, you have your politics, I have mine.

 

Its cool.

 

Im living large in the Mango making fat cash back home  like I did when Reagan and Clinton were the Prez and back then I had to work instead of doing nothing like I am now. Its all about the economy, and my accountant says s**t be on fire homey. 

 

Have a fabulous day!

So you'd be happy with Satan running things as long as your money continued to flow? Screw the children being separated from their families? Screw the poor children whose lunches are being taken away? Screw the Kurds who are being raped and killed? Screw how the dignity of the office of the president of the United States has spiraled into the toilet? Screw how there are no more press briefs (over eight months since the last one)? The list goes on. I pity anyone who accepts politics like these. Judas did the same.