Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone is trying to save the republic and our democracy, because the elected conservatives sure aren't interested.

Yup. And dollars to donuts the WB is someone with an impeccable background of service and fidelity to country over party. God bless that individual.

And allegiance to the CIA, who hasn't been too up and up these past three years.

More up and up than Trump.

Earth’s gravity is more on the up and up than Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If someone has leaked that the President is doing impeachable things, what's really important here is that we investigate the President, not protect him...

...riiight?

We can punish the leaker at our leisure thereafter. Or congratulate him on catching something impeachable, but also train him on the due process of whistle-blowing. Or whatever. But the POINT IS THAT WE CATCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO ENSURE THEY DO NOT RE-OCCUR.

If this was a Democratic President, some of you posters would have no problem understanding this

There is NOTHING impeachable here. That doesn't mean the Dems won't try.

Abuse of power is impeachable, as is the coverup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/biggest-bombshells-in-trump-whistleblower-complaint-cover-up.html

Well, since there was no abuse of power and no cover up, then there is no there there.

? You didn't even bother to read the article. How Trump-like.

-- White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by a July 25 phone call Trump had with Zelensky. There were discussions “with White House lawyers because of the likelihood,” in the minds of officials, “that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.” [abuse of power]

[coverup]
-- Senior White House officials intervened to “lock down” records of the call with Zelensky, which “underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

-- White House lawyers directed White House officials to remove the electronic transcript of the Zelensky call from the computer system where such transcripts normally are stored. That transcript then was loaded into a “separate electronic system” that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If someone has leaked that the President is doing impeachable things, what's really important here is that we investigate the President, not protect him...

...riiight?

We can punish the leaker at our leisure thereafter. Or congratulate him on catching something impeachable, but also train him on the due process of whistle-blowing. Or whatever. But the POINT IS THAT WE CATCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO ENSURE THEY DO NOT RE-OCCUR.

If this was a Democratic President, some of you posters would have no problem understanding this

There is NOTHING impeachable here. That doesn't mean the Dems won't try.

Abuse of power is impeachable, as is the coverup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/biggest-bombshells-in-trump-whistleblower-complaint-cover-up.html

Well, since there was no abuse of power and no cover up, then there is no there there.

Of course there is! A President cannot use his office to solicit foreign interference in an election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wonder what else the whistleblower got wrong.

Christina Ruffini
@EenaRuffini
Scoop: Senior Govt Official tells
@CBSNews
Counselor to the State Department Ulrich Brechbuhl was NOT on the
@POTUS
call with #Zelensky, as the whistle blower complaint states.

You’re going to trust this anonymous report?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now there is a bounty announced on the WB head by two Trump honchos...

https://twitter.com/annalecta/status/1177315198736244738

Lobbyist Jack Burkman & Jacob Wohl—recently-indicted on felony charges—are offering a $50,000 reward for info on the national security whistleblower behind complaint alleging Trump solicited foreign interference in call with Ukraine's president Zelensky

Doesn’t this violate Wohl’s probation?

Probably.

In all seriousness, what happens if the whistleblower gets assassinated? Would there be an uproar that topples the President? Or would the President be able to use such an assassination to cower anyone else who would talk or investigate?

[Anonymous]

In all seriousness, what happens if the whistleblower gets assassinated? Would there be an uproar that topples the President? Or would the President be able to use such an assassination to cower anyone else who would talk or investigate?

Well, since the NYT has released information, it's doubtful the leaker is GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder what else the whistleblower got wrong.

Christina Ruffini
@EenaRuffini
Scoop: Senior Govt Official tells
@CBSNews
Counselor to the State Department Ulrich Brechbuhl was NOT on the
@POTUS
call with #Zelensky, as the whistle blower complaint states.

LOL. Probably a lot more.

I have also read that the call should have been stored on a secured server - totally opposite of what the whistleblower was told and claimed.
The President’s call with Zelenskyy contained references to both POTUS’s and the Ukrainian President’s opinions on multiple European countries and leaders, especially Germany/France and Merkel/Macron, as well as sanctions policy towards Russia.
That’s why when originally classified the transcript was set at the SECRET, Original Classification Authority (ORCON), No Foreign Distribution (NOFORN) level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The whistleblower is an intelligence analyst, someone whose job it is to be precise and to verify information. You are projecting again, but intelligence analysts do not make shit up the way the Trump people do.

Now. Ask yourself how you know this. It is supposed to be kept private, but someone leaked it.

My guess is that it was Schiff.

DP, but wait, you think Schiff leaked information to the whistleblower so the whistleblower could make the complaint?

No. I think Schiff has been leaking information about the complaint so that it would be in the press. He's had the letter from the whistleblower since August. He might also be the source to NYT. This is the way Fusion did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The whistleblower is an intelligence analyst, someone whose job it is to be precise and to verify information. You are projecting again, but intelligence analysts do not make shit up the way the Trump people do.

Now. Ask yourself how you know this. It is supposed to be kept private, but someone leaked it.

My guess is that it was Schiff.

DP, but wait, you think Schiff leaked information to the whistleblower so the whistleblower could make the complaint?

No. I think Schiff has been leaking information about the complaint so that it would be in the press. He's had the letter from the whistleblower since August. He might also be the source to NYT. This is the way Fusion did it.

What information do you believe Schiff leaked about the complaint?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If someone has leaked that the President is doing impeachable things, what's really important here is that we investigate the President, not protect him...

...riiight?

We can punish the leaker at our leisure thereafter. Or congratulate him on catching something impeachable, but also train him on the due process of whistle-blowing. Or whatever. But the POINT IS THAT WE CATCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO ENSURE THEY DO NOT RE-OCCUR.

If this was a Democratic President, some of you posters would have no problem understanding this

There is NOTHING impeachable here. That doesn't mean the Dems won't try.

Abuse of power is impeachable, as is the coverup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/biggest-bombshells-in-trump-whistleblower-complaint-cover-up.html

Well, since there was no abuse of power and no cover up, then there is no there there.

? You didn't even bother to read the article. How Trump-like.

-- White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by a July 25 phone call Trump had with Zelensky. There were discussions “with White House lawyers because of the likelihood,” in the minds of officials, “that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.” [abuse of power]

[coverup]
-- Senior White House officials intervened to “lock down” records of the call with Zelensky, which “underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

-- White House lawyers directed White House officials to remove the electronic transcript of the Zelensky call from the computer system where such transcripts normally are stored. That transcript then was loaded into a “separate electronic system” that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

When there is a reason to lock down the calls and store the transcript on a separate server, there is no coverup. And, there were reasons.
And, the first bullet is total hearsay. Third hand hearsay. Of course the whistleblower will not be held accountable for anything that is false in his complaint because he can claim that whatever was written there is what he heard.
This is why hearsay evidence is not admissible. Because, false information can be promoted without consequence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If someone has leaked that the President is doing impeachable things, what's really important here is that we investigate the President, not protect him...

...riiight?

We can punish the leaker at our leisure thereafter. Or congratulate him on catching something impeachable, but also train him on the due process of whistle-blowing. Or whatever. But the POINT IS THAT WE CATCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO ENSURE THEY DO NOT RE-OCCUR.

If this was a Democratic President, some of you posters would have no problem understanding this

There is NOTHING impeachable here. That doesn't mean the Dems won't try.

Abuse of power is impeachable, as is the coverup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/biggest-bombshells-in-trump-whistleblower-complaint-cover-up.html

Well, since there was no abuse of power and no cover up, then there is no there there.

? You didn't even bother to read the article. How Trump-like.

-- White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by a July 25 phone call Trump had with Zelensky. There were discussions “with White House lawyers because of the likelihood,” in the minds of officials, “that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.” [abuse of power]

[coverup]
-- Senior White House officials intervened to “lock down” records of the call with Zelensky, which “underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

-- White House lawyers directed White House officials to remove the electronic transcript of the Zelensky call from the computer system where such transcripts normally are stored. That transcript then was loaded into a “separate electronic system” that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

When there is a reason to lock down the calls and store the transcript on a separate server, there is no coverup. And, there were reasons.
And, the first bullet is total hearsay. Third hand hearsay. Of course the whistleblower will not be held accountable for anything that is false in his complaint because he can claim that whatever was written there is what he heard.
This is why hearsay evidence is not admissible. Because, false information can be promoted without consequence.

1. Hearsay evidence can be admissible under certain circumstances.

2. That something may be hearsay does not make it inherently untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The whistleblower is an intelligence analyst, someone whose job it is to be precise and to verify information. You are projecting again, but intelligence analysts do not make shit up the way the Trump people do.

Now. Ask yourself how you know this. It is supposed to be kept private, but someone leaked it.

My guess is that it was Schiff.

DP, but wait, you think Schiff leaked information to the whistleblower so the whistleblower could make the complaint?

No. I think Schiff has been leaking information about the complaint so that it would be in the press. He's had the letter from the whistleblower since August. He might also be the source to NYT. This is the way Fusion did it.

Schiff made the letters notifying him of the situation public. He should have been notified in August, by law. The white house released the call summary itself. Guiliani spent a lot of time on TV since Friday about this. So far, the White House and Giuliani have disclosed significantly more about this issue than Schiff or the dems.

[Anonymous]

Feinstein asking for the full call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If someone has leaked that the President is doing impeachable things, what's really important here is that we investigate the President, not protect him...

...riiight?

We can punish the leaker at our leisure thereafter. Or congratulate him on catching something impeachable, but also train him on the due process of whistle-blowing. Or whatever. But the POINT IS THAT WE CATCH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO ENSURE THEY DO NOT RE-OCCUR.

If this was a Democratic President, some of you posters would have no problem understanding this

There is NOTHING impeachable here. That doesn't mean the Dems won't try.

Abuse of power is impeachable, as is the coverup.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/biggest-bombshells-in-trump-whistleblower-complaint-cover-up.html

Well, since there was no abuse of power and no cover up, then there is no there there.

? You didn't even bother to read the article. How Trump-like.

-- White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by a July 25 phone call Trump had with Zelensky. There were discussions “with White House lawyers because of the likelihood,” in the minds of officials, “that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.” [abuse of power]

[coverup]
-- Senior White House officials intervened to “lock down” records of the call with Zelensky, which “underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

-- White House lawyers directed White House officials to remove the electronic transcript of the Zelensky call from the computer system where such transcripts normally are stored. That transcript then was loaded into a “separate electronic system” that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

When there is a reason to lock down the calls and store the transcript on a separate server, there is no coverup. And, there were reasons.
And, the first bullet is total hearsay. Third hand hearsay. Of course the whistleblower will not be held accountable for anything that is false in his complaint because he can claim that whatever was written there is what he heard.
This is why hearsay evidence is not admissible. Because, false information can be promoted without consequence.

All sorts of former NatSec people have been on TV today saying the classification into the secure server is highly unusual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The whistleblower is an intelligence analyst, someone whose job it is to be precise and to verify information. You are projecting again, but intelligence analysts do not make shit up the way the Trump people do.

Now. Ask yourself how you know this. It is supposed to be kept private, but someone leaked it.

My guess is that it was Schiff.

DP, but wait, you think Schiff leaked information to the whistleblower so the whistleblower could make the complaint?

No. I think Schiff has been leaking information about the complaint so that it would be in the press. He's had the letter from the whistleblower since August. He might also be the source to NYT. This is the way Fusion did it.

What information do you believe Schiff leaked about the complaint?

DP.
I have no doubt Schiff leaked. And, in doing so, has violated rules of the House. He had the whistleblower complaint when he wrote this tweet.