Catherine Herridge, now at CBS, devastates ‘Whistleblower’s’ legitimacy

The president and his advisors do not have to testify about anything before any congressional committee, ever. Congress has some oversight authority with the executive branch to assure themselves that their laws are being faithfully executed. They have no oversight over the president himself in that regard.

 

Then weep for the republic's lost ethics, morality and integrity.

 

Ah, the default zero "proof" argument despite all the evidence to date .

I get your hear no, see no, just say no strategy.


we haven't even heard from the key players because trump has ordered them not to honor subpeonas and withhold documents. They'll have to testify in the senate tho. Oh my, the noose tightens.

 

hahahaah!

Wow that is some kind a partisan bias ya got going there. But hey I get it. Trump is the victim in all this.

 

If nobody has to testify or turn over docs, then there is no oversight. Did hillary have to testify over Benghazi? Should she have refused?

 

No evidence of the dem clown show narrative. Hurrying through this without using the courts. This is a timeline impeachment, not a fact impeachment.

 

Some say tomāto, others say tomäto. Some say fact, others say partisan bias.
I agree. You do have it. Trump is most decidedly the victim here.

 

It might help is you understood oversight, or not.

 

You don’t seem to think they have oversight even on congressional approved spending

 

Is this your reply to my post where I said congress has oversight authority??? Boggles the mind!

 

So Mulvaney is breaking the law by refusing? State also?

 

Now that is hilarious. who knew there were different kinds of impeachments. What kind of idiot interpretation.... oh wait that is the republican defense being presented in the hearings today.... okay parrot away.

 

Its not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

 

Well, there are two, legitimate and illegitimate. The dem clown show is in such a rush they won't follow the process of previous impeachments.

 

So, just to recap, the Democrats called three law professors. One served in the Obama DOJ. The second served in the Clinton administration and as counsel for Senator Pat Leahy. The third wrote an article in 2017 for the NYT looking for reasons to impeach Trump.

 

That's a bogus process objection, but I get how you have to cling to it. Its all ya got goin' for ya because the facts are devastating.

 

Accused of what, that they disagreed with his policy and don't like him personally? They can pound sand and resign.

He was protecting national security and national interest and by your measure any meeting anyone attends is a conspiracy. And our Presidents have historically used personal envoys, people who don't live here or know our history or how our government works should post with extreme caution about the USA.

 

I know, in the case of Trump, process and facts are not important because feewings.

 

That has zero as in none, nada, zilch to do with oversight. I repeat, it might help if you understood congress' oversight authority.

One strongly implied that Trump violated the constitution by naming his boy Baron when the constitution specifically prohibits titles of nobility. This was one of the three top expert witnesses for the Democrats. Somebody needs to feed her some smart pills.

 

Congress doesn’t have oversight over OMB?

 

So Rudy worked for russian mobsters and trump? That sounds legit lol

 

Devastates!!!!!

 

Still focusing on the whistleblower? Good lord, even Trump's allies have moved on because they know he did it. You're behind the ball on your Trump defenses, the message now is "It wasn't an impeachable offense".

 

No facts are the key.

You accuse feewings, I accuse willfull ignorance of that very same process and all the facts accumulated so far.

Can you imagine what additional facts would be known if Trump actually released over 75 documents subpoenaed by Congress. Can you imagine what additional facts would be known if all the "president's men" who were participating in scheme to get ukraine to launch bogus investigations, were released to testify?

Gee wait til parness and fruman's evidence starts getting released, we'll know a lot more then as well.

They'll have to turn all that stuff over to the trail in the senate and they'll all have to testify. Oh my.

 

That is where process comes in that the dem clown show is in such a hurry they are willing to ignore.