Discussion:
It may be the first secret that Democrats in Congress were ever able to keep>>>House in High Whistleblower Protection Mode
(too old to reply)
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-08 16:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Fat Tubby's implied threats must be bringing the right wing
cockroaches who easily read into his coded language out of the
woodwork if these measures are being planned.
What implied threats are you whining about?  You mean the gall of the
President to want to actually see who is accuser is?  Oh that's right,
you don't like the rights provided to people in our country.
"The House Intelligence Committee and lawyers for the whistleblower
who filed a complaint about Trump's conduct are discussing extreme
measures to protect the individual's identity amid growing concerns
about his or her safety, according to several sources familiar with
the process. Among the measures being discussed are the possibility
of using an off-site location, limiting Hill staff and members who
would be present and even disguising the individual's image and
voice, the sources said."
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-07-2019/index.html
Unaccepable.  Show his face before the public or no testimony should
be allowed.
Exactly.
It may be the first secret that Democrats in Congress were ever able to
keep.

Other than Obama's College records....
--
That's Karma
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-08 17:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Fat Tubby's implied threats must be bringing the right wing
cockroaches who easily read into his coded language out of the
woodwork if these measures are being planned.
What implied threats are you whining about?  You mean the gall of the
President to want to actually see who is accuser is?  Oh that's right,
you don't like the rights provided to people in our country.
"The House Intelligence Committee and lawyers for the
whistleblower who filed a complaint about Trump's conduct are
discussing extreme measures to protect the individual's identity
amid growing concerns about his or her safety, according to
several sources familiar with the process. Among the measures
being discussed are the possibility of using an off-site location,
limiting Hill staff and members who would be present and even
disguising the individual's image and voice, the sources said."
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-07-2019/index.html
Unaccepable.  Show his face before the public or no testimony should
be allowed.
Exactly.
No.  The members of the house who hear his testimony know who he is.
Neither you nor President Cocksucker have a right to know.  Fuck off.
So the President does not have the right to face his accusers?
No.  No one does.  You have a right to cross-examine *witnesses* against
you in a criminal trial.  That's as far as it goes.
Where do you get this bullshit, anyway?  Oh, now I remember - Trump
claimed such a right, and having your tongue inserted into his anus, you
believed him.
How does the President who we elected.... manage to continue to
guarantee NATIONAL SECURITY when the WHISTLE-BLOWER COULD BE TRANSFERRED
back into a position where they could undermine the PRESIDENCY, and the
President NOT even know he has a traitor in his midst?
--
That's Karma
duckgumbo32@cox.not
2019-10-08 17:51:30 UTC
Permalink
On 10/8/2019 10:18 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Fat Tubby's implied threats must be bringing the right wing
cockroaches who easily read into his coded language out of the
woodwork if these measures are being planned.
What implied threats are you whining about?  You mean the gall of the
President to want to actually see who is accuser is?
There is no "right" to know who one's accuser is. If I call a police
tipster hotline and anonymously report *credible* information that leads to
your arrest and prosecution for a crime, you will never know my
identity...nor should you. If I were called to testify against you in
court, then and *ONLY* then would you learn my identity. If not, tough
shit - you will not know who I am.

That is proper.
Unaccepable [sic].  Show his face before the public or no testimony should
be allowed.
Exactly.
No.  The members of the house who hear his testimony know who he is.
Neither you nor President Cocksucker have a right to know.  Fuck off.
So the President does not have the right to face his accusers?
No.  No one does.  You have a right to cross-examine *witnesses* against
you in a criminal trial.  That's as far as it goes.
Where do you get this bullshit, anyway?  Oh, now I remember - Trump
claimed such a right, and having your tongue inserted into his anus, you
believed him.
How does the President who [sic] we elected
No, we didn't.

*Whom* - the correct relative pronoun is *whom*, not "who" - but "we"
didn't elect him.

Loading...