The whistleblower is not one by definition. Doss not meet the criteria. Why are they hiding him? Does a real person actually exist? Or is this another demo hoax. We all have a right to know. But Trump has a constitutional right to face his accuser.
Lol show me where that's in the Constitution.
It’s called the 6th Amendment.
Go back and watch some schoolhouse rock on YouTube.
The whistleblower is not one by definition. Doss not meet the criteria. Why are they hiding him? Does a real person actually exist? Or is this another demo hoax. We all have a right to know. But Trump has a constitutional right to face his accuser.
Lol show me where that's in the Constitution.
It’s called the 6th Amendment.
Go back and watch some schoolhouse rock on YouTube.
You mean this?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The whistleblower is not one by definition. Doss not meet the criteria. Why are they hiding him? Does a real person actually exist? Or is this another demo hoax. We all have a right to know. But Trump has a constitutional right to face his accuser.
Lol show me where that's in the Constitution.
It’s called the 6th Amendment.
Go back and watch some schoolhouse rock on YouTube.
You mean this?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Yes.
I know you're a moron, but until now, I didn't realize you're an illiterate moron.
The whistleblower is not one by definition. Doss not meet the criteria. Why are they hiding him? Does a real person actually exist? Or is this another demo hoax. We all have a right to know. But Trump has a constitutional right to face his accuser.
Lol show me where that's in the Constitution.
It’s called the 6th Amendment.
Go back and watch some schoolhouse rock on YouTube.
You mean this?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Yes.
I know you're a moron, but until now, I didn't realize you're an illiterate moron.
I didn't realize a house investigation was a criminal proceeding. But just say it was. He's watching it on TV. And tweeting about it. HTH but I know it won't.
The whistleblower is not one by definition. Doss not meet the criteria. Why are they hiding him? Does a real person actually exist? Or is this another demo hoax. We all have a right to know. But Trump has a constitutional right to face his accuser.
Lol show me where that's in the Constitution.
It’s called the 6th Amendment.
Go back and watch some schoolhouse rock on YouTube.
Why does a provision that deals with criminal prosecutions apply to someone who by DOJ current standards can’t be charged with a crime?
The whistleblower is not one by definition. Doss not meet the criteria. Why are they hiding him? Does a real person actually exist? Or is this another demo hoax. We all have a right to know. But Trump has a constitutional right to face his accuser.
Lol show me where that's in the Constitution.
It’s called the 6th Amendment.
Go back and watch some schoolhouse rock on YouTube.
You mean this?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Yes.
I know you're a moron, but until now, I didn't realize you're an illiterate moron.
I didn't realize a house investigation was a criminal proceeding. But just say it was. He's watching it on TV. And tweeting about it. HTH but I know it won't.
The whistleblower is not one by definition. Doss not meet the criteria. Why are they hiding him? Does a real person actually exist? Or is this another demo hoax. We all have a right to know. But Trump has a constitutional right to face his accuser.
Lol show me where that's in the Constitution.
It’s called the 6th Amendment.
Go back and watch some schoolhouse rock on YouTube.
Why does a provision that deals with criminal prosecutions apply to someone who by DOJ current standards can’t be charged with a crime?
Shut the Fuck Up you lying, fabricating piece of shit. Go crawl back under your rock until you produce those actual words that you said Tulsi herself spoke that proved she had a "soft spot" for Assad. 3.5 weeks and counting, asshole.
It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
I have reread this three times and I cannot stop laffing. I see Hondo sitting in a basement thinking as hard as he can on how to set up his clever trap, only for it to be easily navigated by a typical four year old from a trailer park in Mississippi when he's all done crafting his elaborate lure.
It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.
If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no.
It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.
If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no.
In other words, we agree. That if people around Trump corroborate the whistleblower story, then the whistleblowers testimony is irrelevant.
It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.
If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no.
In other words, we agree. That if people around Trump corroborate the whistleblower story, then the whistleblowers testimony is irrelevant.
It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.
If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no.
In other words, we agree. That if people around Trump corroborate the whistleblower story, then the whistleblowers testimony is irrelevant.
It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
Comments
Go back and watch some schoolhouse rock on YouTube.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
I know you're a moron, but until now, I didn't realize you're an illiterate moron.
Last I checked bribery is a crime. HTH
Shut the Fuck Up you lying, fabricating piece of shit. Go crawl back under your rock until you produce those actual words that you said Tulsi herself spoke that proved she had a "soft spot" for Assad. 3.5 weeks and counting, asshole.
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
No
If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no.