Ronald Reagan

I worked for the Federal Government for about 30-years. I never saw a Whistleblower report an insignificant or frivilous issue. Those don't get past the first stage. I never saw a false complaint upheld after an IG investigation. This is not a friviolous or false complaint. I used to have to defend my agency, as Regional Director for Public Affairs, in cases like this. The only defense, when someone is caught doing what the whistleblower alleges is, "We are sorry this happened. This is how we are working to make sure it doesn't happen again." After all, it is the taxpayers' money being spent on investigations, etc. Reagan was clear that taxpayers' money only be spent on things that benefit taxpayers. That was back in the days when Republicans put their country ahead of any one politician.

Happy New Year to my special trolls. I look forward to 2020 filled with more of your Russo-Republican disinformation. I was not the least surprised that not one of you commented about Ronald Reagan. Until 2016, he held a special place in the GOP. I guess it is like when Stalingrad replaced Leningrad. с новым годом
(s novym godom)

Yer kinda a jerk, Mr. Caird. Happy New Years!

I mean, I respect you and I'm glad you post here but still...

Please list your full experience with and knowlege of this act. Your allegation, if you were a Federal Employee would be investigated. If you filed a false report, it would be dealt with as all such false reports are dealt with. But, if your report was accepted, properly processed and investigated, you would be protected against reprisal in your employment for filing it. If your report was processed, thorouhgly investigated and found to be legitimate, as the one that led to impeachment was, you would be protected from the action the president took this weekend, exposing your identity. This person is now open to personal threats and harm from every nut who thinks God has called on them to defend Trump. They will be harassed for a long time, for doing what they saw as their responsibility, under the Constitution. You, on the other hand, making an obvious and vulgar false claim against a politician I guess you have little regard for, expose the depth or lack thereof of your intellectual and moral character.

Yeah, a whistleblower can blow the whistle yet never actually testify or anything. Sounds like a great policy.

Please list your full experience with and knowlege of this act. Any allegations are fully investigated, as they were in the latest case. The whistleblower may be put under oath by moer than one investigator, during the process.

During what process? The one pelosi is impeding?

You have demonsratd that the breadth of your knowledge on this is, as if often the case, limited to what you are fed in the talking points.

Oh, now that just hurtz my feelz, Mr. Caird.

That was meant for actual whistleblowers - not someone who didn't actually witness anything.

People who were actually on the call have testified that there was no quid-pro-quo.

Please list your full experience with and knowlege of this act. It does not apply to eye witnesses only. If I did not see the planes fly into the Twin Towers, am I disqualified from telling others about what I have heard about the event? Many criminals are in prison, based on second hand testimony. Quid pro quo is a red herring. Soliciting a criminal act, is of itself enough.

Please list your full experience of planes and knowledge of how to fly them.

You should read the laws on hearsay. It's usually only admissible as evidence if the person they heard it from is dead.

Nobody who was on the call is dead.

Additionally, the person who was NOT on the call (the whistleblower) is alleging something happened, when people who WERE on the call say it did not.

You're placing more value on hearsay than direct evidence....and there is no direct evidence of any crime, which is why NEITHER article of impeachment lists any evidence.

I am placing value on the dozens of lawyers, judges and other professionals who know more than you or I do, and who have allowed this evidence to process through the Federal system, the Office of the IG, the Office of Special Counsel, the Congress and others, to the point that the president was impeached. Discrediting the whistleblower and putting their safety and life in jeopardy, does not change the fact that the laws supported what they said and how they said it. And long after our silly little arguments on sites like this are forgotten, no one will forget that Trump Was Impeached, because the whistleblower report was factual and correct.

What judges?

This is a 100% Democrat shit-show. Don't pretend for a moment that this isn't entirely political. Pelosi said it herself, she's been working on impeachment for 2 1/2 years, 2 years before the phone call.

The reason Pelosi doesn't send it to the Senate is because she knows what happens next. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. Exactly what shenanigans do you think he's willing to put up with from the Democrats?

It is the Republicans who have the 51-votes needed to neutralize any attempt the Chief Justice tries to make them stick to the rules of law. As the many Trump employees and associates who are now in prison will tell you, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Pelosi has publicly said she just wants Moscow Mitch to declare what brand of Kangaroo Court he is putting on, so that she can appoint the appropriate staff to present the evidence of the crimes.

You're hilarious! All but ONE of the "witnesses" who testified in the House are not eligible to testify in a Senate trial - because only ONE has first-hand knowledge.

That leaves 2 people who can testify. Vindman, who already testified there was no quid-pro-quo on the call, and Sondland - who testified that Trump told him directly that there was no quid-pro-quo.

If you think the Chief Justice is going to change Federal evidence rules allow Democrat "feeling" witnesses, expect a disappointment.

Hey! Remember that time the FBI altered Carter Page's emails to present to the FISA court? Just wondering?

The independent "Inspector General," said in writing that they believed the whistle blower. The facts in the memo reconstruction of the call proved them right.