Where's "The Whistleblower"?

Blowing your mum’s whistle? Is this a guessing games? Originally Posted by HoeHummer

No, we know you're ASSWIPE...no guessing necessary!!

Never mind that almost everything he said has proven true... Originally Posted by WTF

the only thing that has been proven true is that Trump ASKED Ukraine to look into possible corruption by their treaty obligations with the US. you have Slick Willie Blythe to thank for that. and the collapse of the USSR too which allowed Ukraine to break away from mother Russia.


so ftw, what do you claim has been proven true? we'll wait ...

They never expose a whistle blower. The argument is stupid. Why would anyone come forward with wrong doing only to be exposed to the dumb asses to threaten them? Originally Posted by Trey

The alledged Whistleblower is already been exposed. The Whistleblower is a former Obama era National Security Council aide Eric Ciarmella. Adam Schiff hired Ciarmella on July 26th the day after President Trump had his phone call with Ukrainian president Zelensky. Ciarmella isn't even a real Whistleblower he wasn't in on or even heard the phone conversation between Trump and Zelensky he just set up surveillance wire tapping equipment. Adam Schiff was going to pass his bullshit phone parody off as the real deal, what he wasn't banking on was Trump releasing the real transcript of the July 25th phone call between he and Zelensky. This whole thing is a big crock of shit and the Democrats own it.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...s-ukraine-call

All of a sudden he's deemed unnecessary by the Dims. Originally Posted by gnadfly

If you called 911 on El Chapo robbing a bank and they caught El Chapo robbing the bank... would your dumbass tell El Chapo and all his fruity followers the identity of who called 911?

Never mind that almost everything he said has proven true... Originally Posted by WTF

Let's see how far "almost everything he said is true" plays in the Senate trial.

Let's see how far "almost everything he said is true" plays in the Senate trial. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I do believe that Roberts knows "admissible evidence" when he hears it....

.... or sees it.

No, we know you're ASSWIPE...no guessing necessary!! Originally Posted by bb1961

And we know yous are a screaming banshee. Next time I’m in Texas, remind me to jerk off on your driver side door handle after our car date, double B! LOLLING.

No, we know you're ASSWIPE...no guessing necessary!! Originally Posted by bb1961

He even butchers the English language when he posts like YR.

Never mind that almost everything he said has proven true... Originally Posted by WTF

Let's see how far "almost everything he said is true" plays in the Senate trial. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

This is an ideals example of how leaving a singles word out of the conversation changes the meaning.

Typical of a sleeper cells operations.

But more to that... doesn’t your Senate demand 100% truth and accuracy? If so, do you think Trump’s words matter? I thinks not.

And Still no answer
We are in the weeds , 3 questions the LSM has forgot about ?
1) IF there was a Quid pro quo was that illegal ?
2) Why are all the "witnesses " (3 hand opinions) disgruntled employees or fired ?
3) Hunters dealings ?
That's the whole base of the investigation
Funny how simple question are to difficult for the Distortion of fact fairy tales
And abuse of power really talk about distortion of facts ,,,,,

YR - temper tantrums don't improve the logic ( or profound lack of logic) in your posts.

Grow up!

100% truth and accuracy in our guberment