FishinMortician

House Intelligence Committee has released their report

Rate this topic

43 posts in this topic

21 mins ago, makorider said:

You say whistleblower.  I say democrat operative collaberator

An argument that became meaningless as the testimony developed. Everything that the whistleblower is known to have alleged was confirmed by witness testimony.

 

Or would you like to claim that Sondland (million-dollar donor) is really a secret Deep State operative?  And the idiot Chief of Staff too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrianBM said:

An argument that became meaningless as the testimony developed. Everything that the whistleblower is known to have alleged was confirmed by witness testimony.

 

Or would you like to claim that Sondland (million-dollar donor) is really a secret Deep State operative?  And the idiot Chief of Staff too?

Well it was meaningless the second Trump released the transcript.

 

But I do understand why you don't want the light of day shining on the collaborator...er, whistleblower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrianBM said:

Which article of the Constitution is it that extends to the President the right to order officials to ignore subpoenas? 

 

What article grants Congress the power to subpoena members of the Executive branch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

It would seem executive privilege does not exist for Republican Presidents in some people's world.

 

Did not the whistle blower/ leaker supposedly leak his confidential information directly congress in other words Shiffty , rather waiting for the IG to review it.

 

And now Schiffy is reinterpreting and rewriting the Mueller Report.  They really are desperate.

 

Hopefully the Senate will get to the bottom of this fiasco when they put Shiffty and the Leaker on the stand. Shiffty will no longer be able to make up his own rules and act as self appointed special prosecutor of innuendo and hearsay without evidence.

Edited by Jay Blair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the WB made his complaint to the intelligence Inspector General, who did his own investigation and concluded the complaint was well-founded. THEN the matter went to Congress.  And all of that as per statute.

15 hours ago, Flybyme said:

I have toilet paper also. :)

A deeply thoughtful answer.

 

15 hours ago, EBHarvey said:

 

What article grants Congress the power to subpoena members of the Executive branch?

Already the subject of court rulings in this case. You're free to look them up and read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, makorider said:

Well it was meaningless the second Trump released the transcript.

 

But I do understand why you don't want the light of day shining on the collaborator...er, whistleblower

I'll take eye and ear-witness testimony any time I can get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bass Ackwards said:

Pssst, half of those with Harvard law degrees graduated at the bottom of their class.

... and that doesn't even take into account the number of unqualified applicants who had their parents payoff someone to get them into the school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 mins ago, BrianBM said:

Not Sondland.  Not the Chief of Staff.

Sonland's testimony  was "Other than my own presumption". 

 

Are you really hanging your GD hat on THAT?

 

 

get.gif.448ddaaa228a38b54e8bda89b6298bbf.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.