• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump

Cardinal said:
You just confirmed MP’s post, but whatever.
Click to expand...

I know that. You want to run the show? Go back to the House and do it right. The Senate should not give the left an inch.
 
Fletch said:
Well, thats stupid. If you want the entire story, lets hear the entire story. You have no idea what the whistleblower knows or that he may say something that actually supports the president. Sorry, but if there are witnesses, he will be one of them. Sucks that you cant continue your cover-up.
Click to expand...

I'm all for the WB testifying. Bring him on! Let's see what he has to say! It's a fact that NONE of the case relies on a single thing in that complaint, but I'm fine with him telling his side.

What I'm pointing out is that prospect or not isn't why the GOP won't call witnesses. They don't want Bolton up there telling the truth, or others with FIRST HAND knowledge under oath, where they'll be given a choice - lie, and possibly perjure themselves, or confirm the accounts of those who have testified. So if they open the door to witnesses with the WB, that makes it damn hard to keep it closed for Bolton, and others.
 
humbolt said:
There really is no need for witnesses. It's clear that Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler et. al. decided the witnesses they heard from in the House were sufficient to their cause. Nevermind that a Porky Pig cartoon would've been sufficient to their cause. That's irrelevant, but too close to the truth to avoid mentioning, anyway.
Click to expand...

The problem with Pelosi and her gang is that they haven't learned you can't put the genie back in the bottle. IOW, they should have used the courts to subpoena their witnesses instead of rushing the articles through, expecting the senate to do their job for them.
 
zimmer said:
Leftists just cannot stand losing elections.
Click to expand...

You think Michael Atkinson, the Trump appointed inspector general of the Intelligence community, who found the WB complaint to be credible is just sad about the election too?
 
zimmer said:
Leftists just cannot stand losing elections.
Click to expand...

Yet his complaint, described by the inspector general as "urgent and credible", has been borne out by testimony.
 
trixare4kids said:
The problem with Pelosi and her gang is that they haven't learned you can't put the genie back in the bottle. IOW, they should have used the courts to subpoena their witnesses instead of rushing the articles through, expecting the senate to do their job for them.
Click to expand...


Why not just have the senators call the witnesses?
 
HumblePi said:
You people just can't let go of your favorite obscure little far-right leaning sites, can you?
'Real Clear Investigations' recently ran a hyped up story about UFOs. Your problem on the right is that you are excited by any story that's sensational but without facts.

Here's their most recent list of 'investigations'

View attachment 67272316

Real Clear Investigations - Media Bias/Fact Check

Analysis / Bias

RealClearInvestigations reports and links to news from other outlets and also produces its own original stories.

In review, RealClearInvestigations frequently uses emotionally loaded headlines such as this: “2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives” and “Mueller Still Relying on Discredited Steele Dossier.”
Click to expand...

A right center bias isn't a far right leaning site.

You're welcome.

Real Clear Investigations - Media Bias/Fact Check
 
Fletch said:
Hes a fact witness that you guys on the left insist on covering up. What are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

Why not call the eye witnesses who were directly involved in the matter?
 
trixare4kids said:
Why not allow the senate to decide this for themselves by voting?
Click to expand...

You're dodging the question. They are complaining that they lack information that they refuse to get.
 
Fletch said:
Hes a fact witness that you guys on the left insist on covering up. What are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

I don't insist on covering him up. Those are the laws that were passed by both republicans and democrats. It's not my fault that republicans are now ok with ****ting all over the law. I wish it weren't so, but here we are.

But I will argue here that there's absolutely no need for his testimony. You guys screamed for weeks about how everything he said was second hand. So democrats are saying "ok, well everything we've found and all of the people testifying so far have backed up his claims. But there are also all these other people with first hand experience that need to come testify". And with all of that the republican argument is "we need to get that second hand guy in to testify!". The only reason I can think of that they'd like him to testify is to try to prove some kind of conspiracy theory that the dems drummed up, which is hard to believe because we've already had Gordon Sundland, a guy handpicked by Trump, come in and testify that this was going on and everybody knew about it.

I know you're not going to agree with me on this. But you can prove me wrong very easily. Name a question that would help us find the truth or falsehood of the articles of impeachment that the whistleblower would be able to answer in a more meaningful way than someone with firsthand knowledge would be able to answer?

BTW, I remember that a few days ago you said that it was false that witnesses were deposed in the clinton impeachment trial in the senate. I replied with a link proving that it's true. And you ran away, never to respond again. There's nothing wrong with being incorrect on something as long as you man up and admit it when it happens.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
I know that. You want to run the show? Go back to the House and do it right. The Senate should not give the left an inch.
Click to expand...

They did do it right. See if you can explain how they did it wrong without lying or gas lighting. Bet you can't.
 
JasperL said:
I'm all for the WB testifying. Bring him on! Let's see what he has to say! It's a fact that NONE of the case relies on a single thing in that complaint, but I'm fine with him telling his side.

What I'm pointing out is that prospect or not isn't why the GOP won't call witnesses. They don't want Bolton up there telling the truth, or others with FIRST HAND knowledge under oath, where they'll be given a choice - lie, and possibly perjure themselves, or confirm the accounts of those who have testified. So if they open the door to witnesses with the WB, that makes it damn hard to keep it closed for Bolton, and others.
Click to expand...

McConnell would have no trouble whatsoever in not calling any other witnesses, and 52 other Republicans wouldn't either.
 
JasperL said:
I'm all for the WB testifying. Bring him on! Let's see what he has to say! It's a fact that NONE of the case relies on a single thing in that complaint, but I'm fine with him telling his side.

What I'm pointing out is that prospect or not isn't why the GOP won't call witnesses. They don't want Bolton up there telling the truth, or others with FIRST HAND knowledge under oath, where they'll be given a choice - lie, and possibly perjure themselves, or confirm the accounts of those who have testified. So if they open the door to witnesses with the WB, that makes it damn hard to keep it closed for Bolton, and others.
Click to expand...

I dont think Bolton is going to give you what you think he is and the dems will never agree to let the whistleblower testify. So chances are we wont hear from anybody,.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I don't insist on covering him up. Those are the laws that were passed by both republicans and democrats. It's not my fault that republicans are now ok with ****ting all over the law. I wish it weren't so, but here we are.

But I will argue here that there's absolutely no need for his testimony. You guys screamed for weeks about how everything he said was second hand. So democrats are saying "ok, well everything we've found and all of the people testifying so far have backed up his claims. But there are also all these other people with first hand experience that need to come testify". And with all of that the republican argument is "we need to get that second hand guy in to testify!". The only reason I can think of that they'd like him to testify is to try to prove some kind of conspiracy theory that the dems drummed up, which is hard to believe because we've already had Gordon Sundland, a guy handpicked by Trump, come in and testify that this was going on and everybody knew about it.

I know you're not going to agree with me on this. But you can prove me wrong very easily. Name a question that would help us find the truth or falsehood of the articles of impeachment that the whistleblower would be able to answer in a more meaningful way than someone with firsthand knowledge would be able to answer?

BTW, I remember that a few days ago you said that it was false that witnesses were deposed in the clinton impeachment trial in the senate. I replied with a link proving that it's true. And you ran away, never to respond again. There's nothing wrong with being incorrect on something as long as you man up and admit it when it happens.
Click to expand...

There is no law keeping him from testifying.
 
trixare4kids said:
The problem with Pelosi and her gang is that they haven't learned you can't put the genie back in the bottle. IOW, they should have used the courts to subpoena their witnesses instead of rushing the articles through, expecting the senate to do their job for them.
Click to expand...

I'm all for judging the merits of the articles the House sent. If, after that, witnesses are called, that's fine with me. The House dems will move on to attempt another impeachment, at which point the voters will react like wet cardboard, if they haven't already.

Democrat incompetence is on display. It isn't pretty.
 
Fletch said:
I dont think Bolton is going to give you what you think he is and the dems will never agree to let the whistleblower testify. So chances are we wont hear from anybody,.
Click to expand...

The "dems" don't have a choice. If the GOP want to out a WB whose identity is normally protected, that's their option. The GOP run this show, not the Democrats.

And if the guy (Bolton) calling what Rudy and motley crew were doing a "drug deal" doesn't give Democrats what they want, so be it. We won't know till he talks, which he hasn't. He said he will in the trial if asked, so my preference is we all find out what he has to say.
 
Fletch said:
There is no law keeping him from testifying.
Click to expand...

Correct, there's no law technically keeping him from testifying. But the entire point of the whistleblower laws were to prevent blowback from a patriotic american trying to expose corruption. And the republicans obviously have a big issue with that. Which is extremely telling.

Just as telling as you refusing to address the numerous points I made and instead reverting to "there is no law". You are making it extremely easy for people to spot when you are in over your head.
 
Airyaman said:
Let's pretend this is true.

What in the WB's report has proven to be false?

Put another way, let's say I don't like a certain co-worker too much. I'm biased against him in fact. Then, others inform me that he has embezzling millions from the company. I report this, it is investigated, and turns out that he indeed had embezzled millions.

Does my bias towards him change the fact of embezzlement?
Click to expand...

Your analogy is flawed. This is how you should have presented it.

I don't like a certain co-worker too much. I'm biased against him in fact. Then others inform me that they don't like him either...that they are also biased against him. I express my opinion to my supervisors and include the opinions I've heard from others without identifying them. I also make sure the local newspaper reports these opinions...but I make sure they don't get anyone's names...not even mine. My supervisor then demands that the co-worker defend himself against all of our opinions and if he doesn't...he could lose his job.
 
Mycroft said:
Your analogy is flawed. This is how you should have presented it.

I don't like a certain co-worker too much. I'm biased against him in fact. Then others inform me that they don't like him either...that they are also biased against him. I express my opinion to my supervisors and include the opinions I've heard from others without identifying them. I also make sure the local newspaper reports these opinions...but I make sure they don't get anyone's names...not even mine. My supervisor then demands that the co-worker defend himself against all of our opinions and if he doesn't...he could lose his job.
Click to expand...

Garbage post, nothing remotely true in it.
 
Fletch said:
I know that. You want to run the show? Go back to the House and do it right. The Senate should not give the left an inch.
Click to expand...

You are right. If they do they will expose the guilt of Trump.
 
Carleen said:
You are right. If they do they will expose the guilt of Trump.
Click to expand...

And here I thought the House had already done that. They said they did, or we wouldn't have these two articles, would we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom