Things are starting to smell fishy with the impeachment inquiry

[WildRose]

No, 58% of those polled in that specific poll support an investigation.

[Plasmaball]

Yes that’s what he said.

[BlueTex]

@WildRose

Congress has no prosecutorial authority.

Trump has been president for almost three years. Is his DOJ incompetent?

[WildRose]

We’ve been over this several dozen times. Are you expecting a different answer?

Sessions was gutless and hamstrung due to being bullied into recusing himself.

Barr does not suffer from the same affliction or limitation.

[DougBH]

@BlueTex

This tripe again? Type in this search …

ICIG statement whistleblower form

The form was revised to allow hearsay information shortly before this was reported, we all know that. The argument is that the law itself did not preclude hearsay evidence. Clearly, before this report, it was assumed that hearsay evidence was not sufficient for passing such a report to Congress. What changed?

[Kevhead]

@BlueTex

Trump has been president for almost three years. Is his DOJ incompetent?

Do you really want to ask that?

[BlueHeron]

@WildRose

Congress has no prosecutorial authority.

You’re right, but the DOJ does. Where’s the investigation? Where are the multiple charges for the multiple crimes?

[WildRose]

Underway.

[WorldWatcher]

@DougBH

@BlueTex

This tripe again? Type in this search …

ICIG statement whistleblower form

The form was revised to allow hearsay information shortly before this was reported, we all know that.

ICWSP-Form-401 May 24 2018 | PDF | United States Intelligence Community |...

The above link is to the form from 24MAY2018, the phone call was from June 2019 and the whistleblower filed the complaint in August or September 2019 (specific date escapes me).

.
.
.

.
.
.
.^^^^

[adroit]

@DougBH

@BlueTex

This tripe again? Type in this search …

ICIG statement whistleblower form

The form was revised to allow hearsay information shortly before this was reported, we all know that. The argument is that the law itself did not preclude hearsay evidence. Clearly, before this report, it was assumed that hearsay evidence was not sufficient for passing such a report to Congress. What changed?

Both forms allow the WB to submit second-hand evidence. It’s on the IC IG to corroborate such evidence.

He did.

[DougBH]

Then assuming that the source of his information was other employees, that should put the question to rest.

[adroit]

@DougBH

Then assuming that the source of his information was other employees, that should put the question to rest.

NARRATOR: It was and it won’t.

[Morgan]

Are we just going to ignore the fact that constitutional right to due process applies to criminal trials? Are you entitled to due process of your employer is considering firing you? This is deeply silly stuff.

[WildRose]

Then who was the source? Nobody else had access.

[BlueTex]

@Morgan

Are we just going to ignore the fact that constitutional right to due process applies to criminal trials? Are you entitled to due process of your employer is considering firing you? This is deeply silly stuff.

The trial is held in the senate… there is no due process right during the investigation, just like in criminal investigations

[adroit]

@WildRose

Then who was the source? Nobody else had access.

Any number of employees connected to the NSC who was aware of the call?

[BlueTex]

@WildRose

Then who was the source? Nobody else had access

It was second hand information… does that diminish its evidentiary value?

[WildRose]

All of which would have to be “other employees”.

@adroit

@DougBH

Then assuming that the source of his information was other employees, that should put the question to rest.

NARRATOR: It was and it won’t.

[wiley8425]

Good luck with that. The SCOTUS is supposed to be beyond partisan politics. That’s why the justices are seated for life. We see how well that worked out though. Term limits for everyone.

[Plasmaball]

Linda tripp…

Here why dont you ignore this again.