Why does the whistleblower's identity matter?

I challenge you to provide one shred of evidence that he asked for the investigation because he wanted help with his political campaign and not because of a corrupted Vice President.

 

Did you forget the democrats, especially Schiff, were demanding the whistleblower testify until a report surfaced that linked Schiffs team to the whistleblower?

 

The term "whistleblower" is euphemistic and misleading, as there is nothing impeachable in the transcript, which is the basis of this political charade. This person coordinated with Democrats to try to overturn an election. For the integrity of the republic, the mole needs to be outed and live in disgrace, perhaps even be investigated for potential criminality, not continue to go back to business as usual.

 

Where the narrative began, who were the charges painted from the beginning, where these claims of corrupt motivations began and on what basis. It shows persons so intent on removing a duly elected President as to be willing to create false narratives and breaking the law in the process. It shows how public opinion, which the Dems are quick to point out as some kind of evidence or reason to remove, was influenced by the scheme and now being used to impeach.

It ALL starts there. Witness numero uno. Why did Schiff want him called almost demanding he testify before the House?

 

And the veracity of the claims begin with the whistleblower. The first person to be called should have been the whistleblower who set up the whole scheme.

 

And he was actually deemed NOT a whistleblower by the Office of Legal Counsel. Hopefully Graham will get to the bottom of it.

 

Biden isn't off limits. Both he & his son have been investigated by at least three separate investigation sources. All found nothing to build a case on. But Biden's not off limits. In fact, he's on the hot spot every day. Just look at Trump's daily tweeting rants. I'm a Democrat, & I personally feel uncomfortable with Hunter Biden's relationship with Burisma, but after seeing the Senate ignore all the wrongdoing by Trump, the Biden affair pales to insignificance by comparison. Any attempt to pursue anything more against Biden would be purely partisan in nature, & I'm exhausted with the partisanship already.

 

I would recommend you don't hold your breath waiting for that.

Unless blue is your color.

 

"...after seeing the Senate ignore all the wrongdoing by Trump..."

Such as?

 

The fact that you have to ask such a question speaks volumes about your personal prejudices, views & level of familiarity on the issue. There's plenty of info on your question out there for you, if you're interested.

 

Who investigated them and where’s the reports? You all keep saying “debunked debunked debunked” but I have seen literally NOTHING that debunked the idea and certainly no investigation you can actually point to any results of.

 

Because the Constitution says impeachment is for bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump using executive privilege because he believes the House is engaging in overreach and violating separation of powers, is sure as hell not a high crime, or high misdemeanor, much less treason. Cite the statute where it's illegal for a president to assert executive privilege. So impeachment article 2 is idiotic and stupid.

Article 1, is just Democrats making assumptions, about what they think Trump was thinking of, and what they think he secretly desired to do. The Democrats are only assuming Trump's motivations to "look into" the firing of Shokin, were driven by some secret scheme to dig up campaign opposition research dirt on Biden.

Trump has stated what his motivations were, he thought the Bidens were acting like "stone cold crooks." So cite the federal statute making it illegal to look into possible corruption by formerly elected politicians. There is plenty of questionable conduct by Joe Biden while he was VP, as he used his connections and the power of his office to enrich his family members.

On top of all of that, the Democrats have not show that any prerequisites were require of Ukraine, before they got any aid. We have documented the contents and communications from every phone call, every cable, and meeting between the US and Ukraine, and nowhere was there ever any talk of them needing to perform a task before they received aid.

Neither article of impeachment can stand on its own, the dems have not proven their case against Trump. Which is why Trump does not feel he needs to call any witnesses to his defense.

 

Wrong doing like???? You mean like when you people accused Trump of crimes, like violating the emoluments clause, firing Comey, colluding with Russians, getting advanced copies of the stolen DNC and Podesta emails, etc... yadda, yadda?

The list of bogus criminal charges you guys have made against Trump is very, very long. When push came to shove, and the dems listed their impeachment articles (take notice) - NONE of the so called wrongs people like you claimed, were among them. So please, stop with this silliness.

Look in the mirror pal, it's you who have been absorbed by your personal prejudices.

 

So nothing, then.

 

Well when the alleged whistleblower worked for Trump's political rival, of course it matters.

 

Why does bolton matter? The alleged victim in this case (ukraine) vehemently denies a quid pro quo happened. Bolton doesn’t matter.

 

Nothing the whistleblower said or testified too is deemed an impeachable offence. Why he needs to be identified and his testimony is important is because he is a Democrat operative as is Schiff and both colluded, with the help of council, to launch this latest coup attempt. Schiff has lied repeatably about this.

 

Ukraine is a hostage. Why would they risk getting on Trump's bad side? They don't care if he's impeached. Besides, it is entirely possible that Ukraine didn't even know why its aid was being held up. Just because Trump is bad at bribery doesn't mean he should get away with it.

 

Well, you're wrong. But if that's your opinion then we really don't need the whistleblower at all because nothing he says will convince you Trump has committed an impeachable offense. Case closed.

I don't buy into your conspiracy theory but I have no objection to opening a separate investigation into this. It has no bearing on whether Trump committed an impeachable offense.

 

You're deliberately dodging the question. Knowing the identity of the whistleblower won't help us determine whether Trump has committed an impeachable offense.

 

You're missing the point. We already know that Trump didn't do anything wrong.

What we need to know is who hatched this latest plot.

 

Sorry law doesn't actually protest his name only his job, the name part is of course a fiction created by Sciffless to cover up his complicity in the fraudulent impeachment he concocted out of lies and rumors of lies.

 

Lol! How can it be quid pro quo when one side doesn’t even know about it.

and you are just like schiff and his corrupt followers, you read minds. Can you teach me?

 

Your argument is a fiction unmasked by law. The w b is protected; end of story.

 

Regardless of how you feel about this....when the Senate decides, which is the Constitutional design, are you going to continue the" whine " like the Democrats of 2016?