12:20 pm:
More along the lines of Star Chamber resulting from illicit leaker.
11:20 am:So they did check the box about having first hand information (when they didn't) and they didn't check the box saying they had contact with Congress (when they did). Sounds credible and legit to me. https://t.co/T49tGtoO4K— Shem Horne (@Shem_Infinite) October 7, 2019
This article is loaded with euphemisms. In fact, it is so loaded that it makes me suspicious.
It is not a "whistleblower", but illicit leaker. It is not "anonymous", it is secret. Therefore, a secret illicit leaker. He goes on to call the procedures "unorthodox", but they are illegal. The DOJ has ruled on the issue. What they did was not allowed.
The "impeachment inquiry" is not rightly called that. It should be called a star chamber. Therefore, the illicit leak set up the star chamber, which seeks to impeach the POTUS without attention to CONUS' detail.
If you want to win on this, you need to call things by the right names. Maybe the GOP doesn't really want to win.
A dulled mind is the sign of the times. Upgrade the rhetoric, boys. Unless you want the population to be swindled out of its rightful position as sovereign of a free republic.
Whistleblower had 'professional' tie to 2020 Democratic candidate https://t.co/pHNtAb4bDO— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 9, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment