• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.

Welcome to America

New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Question for Leader of the Lakeview Poppas: Do you want to know the name of the "first whistleblower" or does it even matter? I ask because a major component of dealing with LEGITIMATE whistleblowers is "Employee retaliation". Legitimate whistleblowers are KNOWN want to know they are protected from retaliation, and they are protected within the whistleblower guidelines.

I certainly understand why you guys don't want to know who it is/was. Just like who cares who the actual "Russian agents" are/were. It's just get Trump no what the means or the methods, right?
The only thing that matters is the veracity of the information. The person came forward and the DNI determined the info was credible and so far the moron in Oval Office and his chief do staff have confirmed the allegations. The person is protected by law so why do you give a crap who it is?
 
Question for Leader of the Lakeview Poppas: Do you want to know the name of the "first whistleblower" or does it even matter? I ask because a major component of dealing with LEGITIMATE whistleblowers is "Employee retaliation". Legitimate whistleblowers are KNOWN want to know they are protected from retaliation, and they are protected within the whistleblower guidelines.

I certainly understand why you guys don't want to know who it is/was. Just like who cares who the actual "Russian agents" are/were. It's just get Trump no what the means or the methods, right?
This isn’t in the trial phase yet. At that time, if need be, the whistleblowers will testify and be cross-examined. Don’t be in such a hurry. Also, since the Prez wants to confront his accuser, and cross-examine him or her, then the president will be summoned to give his rebuttal testimony. It will be precisely like a trial. You are looking forward to the prez telling his version of events under oath, aren’t you?
 
Abuse of power and bribery is what that the Ukraine case is all about. You could call it extortion, also. Mulvaney, Pompeo, and at least eight more national security officials are potential co-conspirators, unless they come clean with the full transcript of the phone call. Obstruction of justice applies to anyone who is not forthcoming with documents or testimony to this case. Guiliani is pretty well guilty of at least that, and probably a whole lot more. Campaign finance laws seem to have been broken pretty much everywhere along the line. As to the unilateral decision to withdraw US forces from a critical position in the war against Isis, that would be dereliction of duty, and since the people that gain the most in that situation are Russia, Isis, Syria, and Iran, I would say that is aiding and abetting the enemy, and just a hint of treason. Treason is actually debatable because technically you have to be in a real declared war for that to apply, but it can easily be seen as espionage, as well as the couple of times he has given away classified information to the Russians. Anybody remember that hilarious time he invited the Russian spy chief to the oval office? Then we have about ten instances of obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report (that the sitting president can't be indicted for) but that doesn't mean it can't be considered "high crimes and misdemeanors". I think the dereliction of duly, by not defending the constitution from all enemies foreign (Russia, Isis, Syria, Iran) and domestic ( himself and the Republican leadership) is the most salient potential charge. He has already called parts of the constitution phony, and has been violating the emoluments clause daily. In truth, he is virtual saturated in high crimes and misdemeanors.
 
Abuse of power and bribery is what that the Ukraine case is all about. You could call it extortion, also. Mulvaney, Pompeo, and at least eight more national security officials are potential co-conspirators, unless they come clean with the full transcript of the phone call. Obstruction of justice applies to anyone who is not forthcoming with documents or testimony to this case. Guiliani is pretty well guilty of at least that, and probably a whole lot more. Campaign finance laws seem to have been broken pretty much everywhere along the line. As to the unilateral decision to withdraw US forces from a critical position in the war against Isis, that would be dereliction of duty, and since the people that gain the most in that situation are Russia, Isis, Syria, and Iran, I would say that is aiding and abetting the enemy, and just a hint of treason. Treason is actually debatable because technically you have to be in a real declared war for that to apply, but it can easily be seen as espionage, as well as the couple of times he has given away classified information to the Russians. Anybody remember that hilarious time he invited the Russian spy chief to the oval office? Then we have about ten instances of obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report (that the sitting president can't be indicted for) but that doesn't mean it can't be considered "high crimes and misdemeanors". I think the dereliction of duly, by not defending the constitution from all enemies foreign (Russia, Isis, Syria, Iran) and domestic ( himself and the Republican leadership) is the most salient potential charge. He has already called parts of the constitution phony, and has been violating the emoluments clause daily. In truth, he is virtual saturated in high crimes and misdemeanors.

Technically all that's required is one impeachable offense. The house has that more than covered, and they've got the votes. When it comes time for removal, there are a number of other things regarding Trump's lack of fitness that may not be impeachable offenses, but they won't be ignored and may provide Senators with the resolve to give him the boot.
 
Technically all that's required is one impeachable offense. The house has that more than covered, and they've got the votes. When it comes time for removal, there are a number of other things regarding Trump's lack of fitness that may not be impeachable offenses, but they won't be ignored and may provide Senators with the resolve to give him the boot.
Right now, it seems to be a battle to get the Repug Senators to grow a sense of right and wrong. A pretty tough row to hoe.
 
Right now, it seems to be a battle to get the Repug Senators to grow a sense of right and wrong. A pretty tough row to hoe.

Yes, but the non-impeachables may add up. I personally don't think pulling out of Syria is an impeachable offense unless there are reasons such as foreign influences that we don't yet know about. Right now it could be argued that it's his opinion that it's a good strategy, regardless of the apparent and complete lack of coherent thought that went into the decision. In any event, it seems like terrible judgment to most senators and congressmen of all parties. This will certainly be a motivator when it comes time to vote for both impeachment and removal. He likely won't be removed but we can hope for a handful of Republican votes which should certainly serve to lay bare his lack of fitness, further erode his credibility, and basically cause him to go batshit crazy. This will not bode well for his political future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top