Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Keith&Co.]

Revealing the whistleblower's identity is against the law. The Republicans asked for something that cannot be given because they knew simple minded Trump supporters would find the argument compelling.

Everything the WB claimed has been backed up by the testimony of others. The only purpose of putting the WB on the stand would be to attack his/her character.

It's against the law for the whistleblower himself to say who he is?

He must not have a compelling case. If I uncovered this type of corruption I would be singing to the Heavens and demanding to testify. I wouldn't sit back shaking in fear of some President that everyone says is a "goofball."

He said, predictably, attacking the WB's character.
I mean, really, PREDICTED IN THE POST YOU QUOTED

 

[Keith&Co.]

If there is no hidden dirt then Trump wouldn't be trying so hard to hide it. Bill Clinton turned over 90,000 documents when he was impeached. Trump won't turn any over.

Even when he promises transparency he goes back on his word. Ask him about his "beautiful" tax returns he promised to show everyone when he was campaigning in 2016.

And if he turned those over and those showed nothing,

Let's see what happens when he turns those over, before your conspiracy fantasy.

 

[Half-Life]

find? What part of 'manufacture' confuses you?

You really think the Republicans would acquit Trump just so all the dirt can come out on him?

more dirt came out after the vote on witnesses.

Trump's not that dumb, guys. He's always one step ahead of your thinking.

Except he's not. Dirt continues to accrue.
The GOP is no longer pretending he is innocent, they insist his guilt is not sufficient to convict.
How are you missing this?
Oh. Because FOX only deals with (snicker) "facts."

That's right, Keith. This is not a criminal trial. It is a trial to fire someone from their job.

What Trump did is not considered a fire-able offense. If someone does something considered bad at their place of work, it is up to the manager/corporate to fire the person if they feel the offense was grave enough.

If an employee steals a quarter out of the register, they may not fire the employee. If he steals 500 dollars, they probably will fire him. What Trump did was basically the equivalent of stealing a quarter...and then putting it back in the register before the store closes. "He stole the quarter at 4 pm. The store closes at midnight. At 11:37 pm, we noticed the quarter was back in the register."

 

[Keith&Co.]

Face it, the Dems would be in muhc better shape if they never got the Trump Derangement Syndrome and just accepted the loss like men and moved on. From the very second they lost, it was "conspiracy this!, conspiracy that!" They just can't accept the fact they lost fair and square to Trump.

This has to be the most pathetic argument so far. For the last fucking time, in order for Trump to be impeached the dems would have to agree that he won the election. They just don't believe that winning an election gives you four years of complete immunity. Most people agree with this. That you can't is obvious, unsurprising and typical all rolled into a sad package.

The fact that not a single Trump supporter has been able to provide a single consistent coherent argument pretty much shows how this will be viewed in years to come. I just hope Trumps' toadstool cock pressing the back of you throat was worth it all.

Please refrain from the homophobic slurs.

How is that homophobic?

 

[Keith&Co.]

find? What part of 'manufacture' confuses you? more dirt came out after the vote on witnesses.
Except he's not. Dirt continues to accrue.
The GOP is no longer pretending he is innocent, they insist his guilt is not sufficient to convict.
How are you missing this?
Oh. Because FOX only deals with (snicker) "facts."

That's right, Keith. This is not a criminal trial. It is a trial to fire someone from their job.

yep.

What Trump did is not considered a fire-able offense.

it is, actually, look at the arguments coming out. One senator says that it does rise to the level of impeachment, but it still isn't in the nation's interest to impeach, some fine dounlspeak.

If someone does something considered bad at their place of work, it is up to the manager/corporate to fire the person if they feel the offense was grave enough.

yep.
Which us what Mueller carefully said when he did not exonerate the Orange Shitgibbon.

If an employee steals a quarter out of the register, they may not fire the employee. If he steals 500 dollars, they probably will fire him. What Trump did was basically the equivalent of stealing a quarter...and then putting it back in the register before the store closes.

see there? Even in trying to defend him, you hzzve to admit he did steal, just not enough to get upset by.

This has morphed from your earlier claim of NO crime, no wrongdoing.
You're forgiving what you never admitted to before.

More testimony would have made it harder for the actual senators to keep up the same pretense,.

 

[Ford]

yep.

What Trump did is not considered a fire-able offense.

it is, actually, look at the arguments coming out. One senator says that it does rise to the level of impeachment, but it still isn't in the nation's interest to impeach, some fine dounlspeak.

If someone does something considered bad at their place of work, it is up to the manager/corporate to fire the person if they feel the offense was grave enough.

yep.
Which us what Mueller carefully said when he did not exonerate the Orange Shitgibbon.

If an employee steals a quarter out of the register, they may not fire the employee. If he steals 500 dollars, they probably will fire him. What Trump did was basically the equivalent of stealing a quarter...and then putting it back in the register before the store closes.

see there? Even in trying to defend him, you hzzve to admit he did steal, just not enough to get upset by.

This has morphed from your earlier claim of NO crime, no wrongdoing.
You're forgiving what you never admitted to before.

Like the Republicans, the entire explanation has morphed.

First, there was nothing. Just a curious hold on aid to Ukraine.
Then it was revealed that the aid was being withheld to extort an investigation into the Bidens from Ukraine.
Then it was "the whistle blower was not a first hand witness, that's not what happened."
Then it was "here's the transcript...see? No quid pro quo!"
Then people on the call said "there was, we heard it."
Then Rudy - when asked if they withheld aid to Ukraine to get an investigation into the Bidens - said "you're damned right we did!"

This led to Mick Mulvaney's "yeah there was a quid pro quo...so what?" debacle.
One impeachment later, where it is revealed that there was an elaborate and ongoing plot to get Ukraine to announce an investigation, it became "well it was inappropriate, but not illegal."

Finally, it has become "okay maybe it was illegal, but Trump is just too important to the nation to remove from office."

Next up? "Total exoneration!" They're going to use the acquittal as evidence that Trump did absolutely nothing wrong, that the call was "perfect" after all, and if he wants to directly solicit foreign interference in the election, that's "perfect" as well. It's a settled matter. Nixon's famous "when the President does it, that means it is not illegal" has become reality.

Going back to Halfie's example, even if the employee stole 500 dollars, it's not illegal if he's the President. The commission of a crime, or the degree of criminality, simply no longer matter.

 

[Patooka]

That's right, Keith. This is not a criminal trial. It is a trial to fire someone from their job.

What Trump did is not considered a fire-able offense. If someone does something considered bad at their place of work, it is up to the manager/corporate to fire the person if they feel the offense was grave enough.

You've never been in charge of anything, have you? If I had an employee use their position and company funds to further their own personal gain, I would (and have) get rid of them. That the senate didn't is why so many people are pissed off. Not just Democrats, not because they are holding onto a 4 year grudge. It is because through inaction the senate has endorsed corruption for the executive branch of government.

If an employee steals a quarter out of the register, they may not fire the employee. If he steals 500 dollars, they probably will fire him. What Trump did was basically the equivalent of stealing a quarter...and then putting it back in the register before the store closes. "He stole the quarter at 4 pm. The store closes at midnight. At 11:37 pm, we noticed the quarter was back in the register."

I've worked in retail for 15 years. Your scenario would get you sacked. I would sack you. Your analogy is bullshit, by the way; once again the facts don't support them. A more appropriate analogy would be:

An employee (Bob) empties the cash register at the start of the shift. A co-worker (Emma) notified the line manager, who then told the Duty manager. The duty manager got a statement from the co-worker and rang up HR. The duty manager then told Bob that an accusation has been made and in accordance to the NEW South Wales Workplace Surveillance Act of 2007, we will be checking the cameras at the time of work. Bob asks who accused him of stealing and the duty manager replies, "None of your business, people can make statements anonymously. We don't act on them unless evidence backs this up. If we find nothing, we do nothing." A spot check is done on the register and it is discovered the money is missing. Whilst the Duty manager is checking the cameras, the money is put back in the register. The Duty manager discovers Bob took the money and he is suspended with pay until HR make a ruling.

Bob is furious. He accuses the Duty manager, "You've had it in for me since the day I started!" The Duty manager replies, "Bob, it is true I was always skeptical of your ability to work here, but that doesn't change the fact you took money out of the register and it is on camera." Bob replies, "People take cash out of registers all the time! You did it yesterday!" The duty manager replies, "I took a $20 note out of register 2 and swapped it with ten $2 coins on register 8. Never did any of the money go into my pocket, it is not the same thing. Until HR make a ruling, there really is no point discussing this further. You are not helping your case by constantly screaming you're the victim"

HR comes back with an answer. Bob is to be let off the hook. Duty manager is appalled. Duty manager asks, "Hey fuckheads, what about the camera footage?". HR replies, "We took a vote, you can't use it. You should have mentioned it before you called us"
"That is not company policy! For fucks' sake I have the motherfucking guidelines on how we should act if a staff member is suspected of violating the Code of fucking Conduct and step one is call you cunts"
"Homophobic remarks aren't helping your case, sir. Besides, the money was found later so who cares if it went missing in the first place?"
"If you let this slide, you are basically endorsing all our checkout operators to steal from the fucking registers! What the fuck is wrong with you people?"
"Incidentally, Mr Patooka, we have a statement that you took $20 out of a cash register three days ago..."
"FOR FUCKS SAKE!"


That is a more accurate analogy of what Trumps' impeachment hearing is similar towards. Bob should have been sacked, HR is fucked and the Store Support Manager was an underpaid underappreciated member of staff.

 

[Patooka]

Also, and I can't believe this has to be pointed out, the President of the United States of America should be held to a fucking higher standard than some random checkout chick. That Trump is as reliable as a dodgey shop assistant isn't exactly reassuring.

 

[Elixir]

...the President of the United States of America should be held to a fucking higher standard than some random checkout chick. That Trump is as reliable as a dodgey shop assistant isn't exactly reassuring.

Yeah well, for that matter a poster on this forum should be held to a higher standard than mindless repetition of alt-white propaganda soundbytes.
I have a few of relatives who sound precisely like HL - the phrasing is so common among them all that it can make you shudder to realize what kind of hive-mind has assimilated them.

 

[JohnG]

The problem with your Weinstein comparison is that if they went to trial and said, "We have enough evidence to convict Harvey. We're ready for trial," and then during the trial they said, "No wait! We need more witnesses!," it wouldn't fly.

they STILL never said 'wait,' that's a mistruth.
You're still pretending they did not list the documents they wanted and the witnesses they wanted before the trial started. The ones Trump kept from the House.
You know, the obstruction?

What? Republicans wanted the whistleblower to testify. The Dems said no.

We don't even know who the whistleblower is! How can you even have a fair trial when the whistleblower himself refuses to say who he is. Is he deathly afraid of Trump, too?

It's against federal law to make public the name of the whistleblower. But you knew that.

 

[Half-Life]

What? Republicans wanted the whistleblower to testify. The Dems said no.

We don't even know who the whistleblower is! How can you even have a fair trial when the whistleblower himself refuses to say who he is. Is he deathly afraid of Trump, too?

It's against federal law to make public the name of the whistleblower. But you knew that.

My question was, "Can he publicly come out himself?"

 

[Patooka]

What? Republicans wanted the whistleblower to testify. The Dems said no.

We don't even know who the whistleblower is! How can you even have a fair trial when the whistleblower himself refuses to say who he is. Is he deathly afraid of Trump, too?

It's against federal law to make public the name of the whistleblower. But you knew that.

My question was, "Can he publicly come out himself?"

No it wan't. Not even remotely close. The identity of the whistleblower is not necessary as the evidence is on public record. It's not the confidential informant who testifies in a drug case, but the evidence that was found because of it. This is no different.

Simply put, who the whistleblower is makes fuck all difference to what Trump and his team already admitted that they did. And whilst I'm not surprised you don't understand why whistleblowers should be protected, most of the developed world does.

 

[angelo]

Oh, my. Could acquittal and Brexit happen on the same day? Well, how 'bout dat.

It will happen within hours of each other! The leftists on both sides of the Atlantic will go into mourning within hours. Never mind, it's nothing a good stiff bourbon or a gin & tonic won't help ease the pain.

It’s so interesting watching you react. How you don’t really seem to care at all about the effects of Brexit, you never talk about the policy implications or the benefits. No, instead all it means to you is watching your enemies be upset.

It’s weird, bully behavior. You do it a lot. The “own the libs” mentality that doesn’t think deeply about any actual policy or current event, merely reacts to the scorekeeping propaganda that is fed.

I find your shallow treatment of issues to be a fascinating window into your core.

Of course if that " core " isn't socialism and totalitarianism it must be sick right?

 

[angelo]

Oh, my. Could acquittal and Brexit happen on the same day? Well, how 'bout dat.

It will happen within hours of each other! The leftists on both sides of the Atlantic will go into mourning within hours. Never mind, it's nothing a good stiff bourbon or a gin & tonic won't help ease the pain.

Did something happen in. your childhood to make you post such hateful things? I despise Trump, but I have some friends who I care about who support Trump. In fact, one of them has no idea that she has voted for a party that tries to do things that are actually hurtful to her. I don't despise people simply because they have different political views than me, or because they have been sucked up into the Trump cult. Why do you hate those who disagree with you?

Nobody who I know is going into mourning because of Trump. He's not worth it. More likely, the awful legacy of what the Democrats in the House are doing will live with them for the rest of their lives.

There, fixed it for you.

 

[angelo]

The Bottom line is still this. The Democrats make a mockery of their name by trying to deny those people the right to pass judgement on the Trumps presidency later this year. And that they have never accepted that Killery lost in 2016.

 

[zorq]

The Bottom line is still this. The Democrats make a mockery of their name by trying to deny those people the right to pass judgement on the Trumps presidency later this year. And that they have never accepted that Killery lost in 2016.

Because that's how it works right? When you get caught cheating in a math test, the teacher just lets you finish the test and grades it normally? No. That test gets torn up and thrown in the trash.

Trump was caught cheating an election. What kind of person with any respect for the constitution or democracy just ignores that kind of abuse? Trump cheated and the right thing to do is to call him out on it. And just like the math teacher, after you call him out, you throw away Trump's corrupt campaign. Failure to enforce the rules emboldens cheaters and legitimizes corruption.

There was a time when conservatives cared about principles, and law and order. I wonder what happened.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What? Republicans wanted the whistleblower to testify. The Dems said no.

We don't even know who the whistleblower is! How can you even have a fair trial when the whistleblower himself refuses to say who he is. Is he deathly afraid of Trump, too?

It's against federal law to make public the name of the whistleblower. But you knew that.

My question was, "Can he publicly come out himself?"

Yes, you shifted to that, just for ad hominem.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

How long can the name of the whistleblower be hidden? I mean it isn't hidden anymore anyway, but how long can it be hidden?

Suppose, just suppose, the Republicans change their mind and want to call witnesses. Should his name be revealed if they try to call him to the stand? Should they subpoena "John Doe" and have him testify behind a screen?

I did a test post to Facebook. I heard a rumor that if you post his name, Facebook will delete the post. My post was up for about 24 hours and then disappeared without any notice. Not even a "your post violated our standards" notification. Just gone.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Suppose, just suppose, the Republicans change their mind and want to call witnesses. Should his name be revealed if they try to call him to the stand?

What can the whistleblower contribute that we don't already have?
All they can do is ask for his voting history and tell the cameras thsst he's a Never-Trumper who hates America, horses, and Jesus.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Suppose, just suppose, the Republicans change their mind and want to call witnesses. Should his name be revealed if they try to call him to the stand?

What can the whistleblower contribute that we don't already have?

Having everything he says be officially stated on the record.