They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Keep up, testimony supports the Whistleblower complaint, including this detail. Question, does it matter whether the Ukrainians knew of the shakedown in May or August? No, there was a shakedown, period. Why get hung up on this little detail in an attempt to excuse the whole criminal enterprise? |
Anonymous
The whistleblower made a report of his concerns to the correct person. As a result we are now having impeachment hearings. At these hearings multiple people are testifying the same basic facts that they directly observed. It is good to get to the bottom of this, through a Constitutional process. The American public needs to know: is the President fit to serve? Did he abuse the power of his office for personal gain? Public hearings will help us learn the extent of this abuse of office. Neither Democrats nor Republicans nor Independents think a President is above the law . All loyal Americans support our Constitution. |
Anonymous
With Schiff's staff, where they were told what the Whistleblower process was and who to contact. Again, does this negate the story that Rudy, Mulvaney and Trump have all admitted to and that documents, phone calls, text messages and the testimony of more than 10 people support? You keep bringing up these deflecting Fox points that are irrelevant to the core story, that the President of the United States extorted another foreign leader who was under the gun barrel of the Russians using Congressionally appropriated funds for personal gain. Why? |
Anonymous
How was this extortion? Extortion is obtaining something by force or threat. I don't think asking for a favor is extortion. |
Anonymous
Asking for a favor and making $400M in military aid contingent on that favor is extortion. |
Anonymous
Then was what Biden did, extortion also? |
Anonymous
No, because what Biden did was in agreement with the US, all our allies, the World Bank and the IMF. That was policy. This was personal and political. |
Anonymous
Ok if that’s what the fake news media wants you to believe. Sure. 
|
Anonymous
I actually can’t tell if this is sarcasm or sad, sad trolling. |
Anonymous
If you can't, then I guess it's neither. |
Anonymous
|
Devin Nunes two years ago:
“Just two years ago, for example, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chaired the House Intelligence Committee that was investigating Russian election interference in the 2016 election. At a press conference in March 2017 announcing that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had agreed to testify, Nunes indicated that those who came forward with information for the investigation would be protected no matter what. “We don't talk about sources at this committee,” said Nunes. “We want more people to come forward. The good thing is that we have continued to have people come forward, voluntarily, to this committee and we want to continue that and I will tell you that that will not happen if we tell you who our sources are and people that come to the committee.” Nunes also encouraged whistleblowers to come forward “whether it's top secret or not. Or anyone who has read their name in any press article, they're welcome to come forward and be interviewed.” And before the Russia investigation, Nunes lamented that whistleblower protections weren’t strong enough to ward off intimidation, which made officials worried that would-be whistleblowers would follow the path of Edward Snowden—the former government contractor who in 2013 leaked to the public a trove of data exposing government surveillance—rather than route their concerns through the congressional committees. “There is a systemic problem with the whistle-blower process,” Nunes told Bloomberg’s Eli Lake. “There is no easy way for them to come forward that doesn't jeopardize their careers, across the whole defense and intelligence community enterprise.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/devin-nunes-once-praised-anonymous-whistleblowers-now-he-wants-trumps-exposed |
Anonymous
|
There should be a ton of lawsuits lined up for this:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumpkins-thought-this-man-was-the-whistleblower-they-were-wrong And more important, I hope he isn't harmed. |
Anonymous
| Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything. |
Anonymous
Now you know how every man falsely accused of rape feels. |
Anonymous
The whistleblower reported his concerns to the proper channels. That act made him a whistleblower. There's no requirement to have first hand evidence to report your concerns. Here's the analogy from 2nd grade: Little Donny is writing vulgar words in the boys bathroom with permanent marker. 6 kids see him do it and the are talking about what little Donny did. Jimmy, the 6th grade patrol, hears about it from the other kids. He didn't see Donny do anything but he believes that the 6 kids talking about it are quite credible. He does what he is supposed to do and tells the PE teacher (patrol supervisor) about his concerns. PE teacher investigates, finds naughty words written, and interviews the 6 people Jimmy said were talking about it. Each one of them says the same thing -- that they saw Donny writing the naughty words. Jimmy, the 6th grader, wasn't a direct observer of misbehavior. But he heard enough to raise his concerns with the authority in charge. That person carries out the interviews and investigation. A 'whistleblower" *can* have direct knowledge of misbehavior, but that isn't a requirement. They aren't filing a criminal complaint. They are alerting authorities to the possibility of misbehavior or in Trump's case, misuse of office. |