Trumps direct and to the point letter to Nancy Pelosi

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: tanstaafl

I wasn't referring to this whistle-blower...

? You said:

"I won't pity any president who uses watches the DOJ use espionage act on a whistle blower, which strips them of constitutional rights like what happened with Reality Winner."

So, you did, in fact, refer to 'a' whistle-blower.

Yes, but I referenced Reality Winner specifically.

You replied referencing "the" whistle-blower, later explaining the one related to the impeachment inquiry. I didn't refer to them, and they haven't been charged with the espionage act, so it's irrelevant to my point.

a reply to: YouSir

Either way, this whistle-blower has nothing to do with my point.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: tanstaafl

Personally, I suspect Vindman was the actual leaker

I have said in many other posts that I do believe Vindman was the source for the whistle-leaker. So, yes, I agree,,,

and may actually have been the one to speak to Schiff's staff. The whistleblower more than likely is one of Schiff's staff who heard it secondhand from Vindman.

I this it has been established with reasonable certainty that Eric Ciaramella is the whistle-leaker - but it isn't 100% yet, so you still could be right.

A circus of circles, but like any circus, time to collapse the tent and move on to the next big show!

Quotes because I loved the 'circus of circles' phrase, mind if I borrow it at some later date?

a reply to: UKTruth

You are correct. Someone will be able to read this ungrammatical lying rant for as long as the United States exists.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Yes, but I referenced Reality Winner specifically.

You replied referencing "the" whistle-blower, later explaining the one related to the impeachment inquiry. I didn't refer to them, and they haven't been charged with the espionage act, so it's irrelevant to my point.

Well, whatever. Referencing any whistle-blower in a discussion of this impeachment farce without specific clarification is just confusing the issue, you honestly don't see that?

There was no reason to. You should have just said what you said to clarify.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I was very specific.

That and my post was replying to someone asking if anything in the letter was wrong.

I said the only thing I saw wrong was he was claiming to have constitutional rights infringed in regard to trials... He hasn't had a trial yet.

I said then to touch on that further, it's hard for me to pity presidents who let their DOJ circumvent constitutional rights with the espionage act.

I was very clear... I think you confused it when you conflate my point with the current whistle-blower, who hasn't been charged with espionage act... So it's not applicable.

a reply to: tanstaafl

A circus of circles, but like any circus, time to collapse the tent and move on to the next big show!

Quotes because I loved the 'circus of circles' phrase, mind if I borrow it at some later date?

It does have a nice zingy ring of truth to it.
I have no problem with anyone using it.

originally posted by: underwerks
The funniest part of it all is that this PDF is 12 megabytes.

12!

Almost the whole Bible fits on 1 megabyte. Who was the idiot who scanned this, smudges intact, and released it? What an inept, bunch of brain dead morons. That being said, this is a historical document. Historical in the vein of Nero and Caligula. People in the future will be forced to doubt the very record of this, on account that it is just that unbelievably crazy.

Donald Trump actually calls this impeachment unconstitutional. Never mind that the constitution gives sole power of impeachment to the house.

I hope Pelosi hangs this up on her wall.

that's hysterical *rolls eyes*

Can you help a brother out and perhaps list them "meticulously documented" crimes that Trump is guilty of?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
You are just absolutely delusional. Even pathetic. A perfect example of the blindness of everyone that supports this criminality. Lord, help us and this nation because Trump and his supporters are in an epic battle with evil.

Most of that letter is just flat-out lies.

No wonder you guys are eating it up!

The POTUS is a liar and a cheat. He's going to be famous for decades to come when he gets impeached today though!

originally posted by: links234
Most of that letter is just flat-out lies.

No wonder you guys are eating it up!

The POTUS is a liar and a cheat. He's going to be famous for decades to come when he gets impeached today though!

Should be easy to quote lies from the letter? What’s the biggest lie in the letter?

a reply to: neutronflux

Allow me...

The impeachment inquiry and subsequent hearings were not unconstitutional.
Trump's Due Process rights were not violated
The Salem Witch trials were not kinder to their accused than the current process has been to Trump.

The investigation into Russia's election interference was not a hoax.
Robert Mueller did not find "nothing", he found lots of somethings, and no less than 10 examples of Trump's obstruction of justice, which he referred to Congress.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Are on Drugs?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You

The impeachment inquiry and subsequent hearings were not unconstitutional.

Really. How was due process honored for the president?

Trump's Due Process rights were not violated

I disagree. And there is no bases to protect the identity of the whistleblower.

The Salem Witch trials were not kinder to their accused than the current process has been to Trump.

Many wishes of violence on the president by very visible progressives. Much violence against trump supporters. Same mentality of prosecution based on what liberals think Trump believes while ignoring real issues like violence and drugs at the southern borders.

The investigation into Russia's election interference was not a hoax.

What credible threat started the spying on the Trump campaign?

You mean a lie like Trump working with the Russians?

Robert Mueller did not find "nothing", he found lots of somethings, and no less than 10 examples of Trump's obstruction of justice, which he referred to Congress.

You mean Trump exercising his right to use executive privilege that should be handled through the court system?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

they found differing opinions not a scrap of actual hard core evidence that would have brought most of the country into the impeach him camp.

Round objects. Let me guess - if Obama has been accused of the same things you would now be calling for his immediate execution for high treason.
It'a the utter lack of consistency and basic logic that baffles me right now about the pro-Trump people out there.

So because no one will rise to the bait, you go a head and build a strawman argument... come on, you're better than this.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You

The impeachment inquiry and subsequent hearings were not unconstitutional.

Really. How was due process honored for the president?

Trump's Due Process rights were not violated

I disagree. And there is no bases to protect the identity of the whistleblower.

Obviously, you are not a lawyer. This isn't a matter of opinion. Trump's right to due process is legally realized when the Senate takes up his trial. Nobody is entitled to due process during investigations or Grand Juries.

ME: The Salem Witch trials were not kinder to their accused than the current process has been to Trump.

You: Many wishes of violence on the president by very visible progressives. Much violence against trump supporters. Same mentality of prosecution based on what liberals think Trump believes while ignoring real issues like violence and drugs at the southern borders.

"If wishes were horses, the poor would ride." Study your history, this is nothing like the Salem Witch Trials.

ME: The investigation into Russia's election interference was not a hoax.

YOU: What credible threat started the spying on the Trump campaign?

You mean a lie like Trump working with the Russians?

That's all explained in the Mueller Report. Did you read it?

ME: Robert Mueller did not find "nothing", he found lots of somethings, and no less than 10 examples of Trump's obstruction of justice, which he referred to Congress.

YOU: You mean Trump exercising his right to use executive privilege that should be handled through the court system?

That's not what the report said, and that's not what Bill Barr claimed in defense of Trump's actions of obstruction of justice.

I need to hear this letter in a Sassy Trump voice.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I was very clear...

No, you weren't. I guess that is why you "Edit: to explain,..."

I think you confused it when you conflate my point with the current whistle-blower, who hasn't been charged with espionage act... So it's not applicable.

I know it isn't applicable, which is why I responded. You are the one who conflated the issue when you brought up 'whistleblower' in the first place, when it was totally irrelevant.

All you had to do was say 'my bad, shouldn't have included that irrelevant reference'. Whatever... I'm done wasting my time on explaining it to you.

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You do realise that the orange man is bad....dont you?

I pray you do realise what the orange man is.

I know you do.

You've convinced me, I'll be voting for Biden now, old man good

a reply to: neutronflux

It is! There's so many though and you're just going to ignore them all because Dear Leader is furiously all-caps tweeting about how unfair all of this is to him, the perpetual victim.

Look, so maybe Trump broke a few laws and maybe he directed some non-government employees to do some backdoor work for the government but hey, we can't impeach the guy because the stock market is doing well. Right? That's the gist of it, isn't it?