- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I’d Like to Hear Some Arguments Why the ID of the Whistleblower is Necessary
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:35 pm
Discussed this at length with a colleague whilst tailgating this weekend.
Seems to me it’s completely irrelevant in this context. All he/she did was highlight a potentially illegal phone call of which we now know of, and even have the transcript. I think republicans would be much better off fighting the merits of a pretty weak case for impeachment instead of trying to convince us moderates/independents that we need to know who the whistleblower is. We just don’t.
Heard a GOP pundit rationalize the necessity of revealing the whistleblower’s identity by saying “if someone yells fire and you look over and there is actually a fire, you want to know who first saw the fire.” Not sure I understand his argument there
You address the fire, it doesn’t matter who first saw it.
Seems to me it’s completely irrelevant in this context. All he/she did was highlight a potentially illegal phone call of which we now know of, and even have the transcript. I think republicans would be much better off fighting the merits of a pretty weak case for impeachment instead of trying to convince us moderates/independents that we need to know who the whistleblower is. We just don’t.
Heard a GOP pundit rationalize the necessity of revealing the whistleblower’s identity by saying “if someone yells fire and you look over and there is actually a fire, you want to know who first saw the fire.” Not sure I understand his argument there
You address the fire, it doesn’t matter who first saw it.
55
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:36 pm to Huevos
The right of confrontation?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:37 pm to Huevos
Because he’s not a WB. There are no statute protections for WBing the POTUS.
In fact, there are none outside of the IGIC.
This is all bogus. And it’s bogus because this guy is a partisan hack and they are trying to hide it from being exposed.
In fact, there are none outside of the IGIC.
This is all bogus. And it’s bogus because this guy is a partisan hack and they are trying to hide it from being exposed.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:37 pm to Huevos
You can’t be this stupid. I refuse to believe you can be this stupid.
This post was edited on 11/24/19 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:38 pm to Huevos
So you are for any low level bureaucrat being able to lob unsubstantiated political bombs in complete anonymity?
Yeah that’ll work great.
Yeah that’ll work great.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:38 pm to Huevos
If you allow unnamed sauces to impeach a duly elected POTUS what does that do for the republic going forward?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:39 pm to Huevos
quote:
You address the fire, it doesn’t matter who first saw it.
Because it’s obviously a coordinated fabrication of nothing into a fake scandal an attempt to impeach a president.
The whistleblower is a lying loon and should be outed.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:39 pm to Huevos
It goes to motivation, credibility, and access.
What motivated the whistleblower?
Is he or she credible?
Where was the WB when the conversation took place?
Hide the identity and you hide the answers to those questions.
What motivated the whistleblower?
Is he or she credible?
Where was the WB when the conversation took place?
Hide the identity and you hide the answers to those questions.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:39 pm to Huevos
quote:
“if someone yells fire and you look over and there is actually a fire, you want to know who first saw the fire.” Not sure I understand his argument there
If someone was charged with arson that damn sure would be relevant. The President is being accused of bribery by those in Congress and in the media. That's a criminal offense. He damn sure better be able to confront his accuser.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:39 pm to Huevos
How about motivation?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:40 pm to Huevos
Why wouldn't we want to hear from the whistleblower?
No one has a negative first hand account of anything that has testified thus far. Add it to the list.
There's also concerns that the chair conducting the hearings is actually a fact witness which cant allow him to be free of a conflict of interest.
No one has a negative first hand account of anything that has testified thus far. Add it to the list.
There's also concerns that the chair conducting the hearings is actually a fact witness which cant allow him to be free of a conflict of interest.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:40 pm to Huevos
quote:
Heard a GOP pundit rationalize the necessity of revealing the whistleblower’s identity by saying “if someone yells fire and you look over and there is actually a fire, you want to know who first saw the fire.” Not sure I understand his argument there
This is a stupid argument, I agree.
The point is that the whistleblower isn't a whistleblower. He coordinated with Schiff on the "whistleblow," and the Dems do not want him under oath testifying to the obvious related questions.
The whistleblower is well known. This is why the Senate trial will not happen. It will explode in the faces of the DNC.
ETA: you claim to be independent/moderate... why does the Republican attempt to expose the whistleblower push you toward the Dems, yet the mockery of the Judicial system, disregard for the Constitution, and absolute derangement of the Dems not move your needle?
This post was edited on 11/24/19 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:41 pm to Huevos
quote:No you didn't.
Heard a GOP pundit rationalize the necessity of revealing the whistleblower’s identity by saying “if someone yells fire and you look over and there is actually a fire, you want to know who first saw the fire.”
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:41 pm to Huevos
Political bias.
This was a hit. Not a whistleblower case.
This was a hit. Not a whistleblower case.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:41 pm to Huevos
The WB was coordinating with the Resistance....he was also a confidential human asset working for the Resistance, probably CIA/FBI leaking to Brennan and the Swamp Media.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:41 pm to Huevos
quote:
Heard a GOP pundit rationalize the necessity of revealing the whistleblower’s identity by saying “if someone yells fire and you look over and there is actually a fire, you want to know who first saw the fire.” Not sure I understand his argument there
You address the fire, it doesn’t matter who first sa
You sure he didn’t say “you look over and there is not actually a fire”?
Because that would be more relevant
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:44 pm to Huevos
quote:
if someone yells fire and you look over and there is actually a fire, you want to know who first saw the fire
No, if someone yells fire, and the purpose is other than alerting people to a fire, then you want to know who did it.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:46 pm to Huevos
Because every American, even the lowly President, has a right to face and cross examine his/her accuser.
You cant even be convicted of speeding if the officer doesn't show up to testify.
But you think an underling of the President ought to be able to accuse the President of whatever the frick they want and Trump has to prove his innocence (another constitutional violation) without even getting to question the "whistleblower"
GTFO Comrade
You cant even be convicted of speeding if the officer doesn't show up to testify.
But you think an underling of the President ought to be able to accuse the President of whatever the frick they want and Trump has to prove his innocence (another constitutional violation) without even getting to question the "whistleblower"
GTFO Comrade
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:53 pm to Huevos
quote:
Seems to me it’s completely irrelevant in this context.
Nope.
1) The Democrat Media Complex has been trying to impeach President Trump from Day One. 25th Amendment, Emoluments Clause, Stormy Daniels, Trump/Russia, Trump/Ukraine, etc. By now, even the most ardent Trump-hater has to acknowledge that YET ANOTHER attempt to bring down this President could very well be nothing but a pre-planned scheme.
2) Without OFFICIALLY knowing who the "whistleblower" is, it is impossible to assess his possible motives, who he may have interacted with, etc.
3) At one time, Adam Schiff was downright giddy about having the "whistleblower" testify. Then it was discovered that not only did Schiff and his staff lie about not knowing the identity of the "whistleblower," they had also had multiple interactions with the "whistleblower."
4) Everybody and their favorite dog knows that Eric CIAramella is the "whistleblower." There's really nothing left to hide.
5) Why can't Team Trump face their accuser? Why were they not allowed to call their own witnesses? Why is little weasel Adam Schiff a 2-time loser now, who has lied TWICE about having impeachable evidence against President Trump? Schiff lied about Trump/Russia, and now he has been caught lying about Trump/Ukraine.
You are WAY OFF BASE, OP.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 4:53 pm to Huevos
Because in America we have the right to confront our accuser
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News