Whistleblower complaint released

[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.

Uh huh.

You think it's all hunky dory for Trump to pursue his personal interest at the expense of the country's interest.

I don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All of that information was out there way before the complaint. The Giuliani story has been out since May. The aid to Ukraine had been held up for months. The complaint was NOT sent to Congress as it should have been.

[Anonymous]

I can't wait to see the impeachment trial - especially the part where the Democrats try to prove a quid pro quo when the party who was presumable pressured, Zelensky, was on national tv saying he was not pressured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait to see the impeachment trial - especially the part where the Democrats try to prove a quid pro quo when the party who was presumable pressured, Zelensky, was on national tv saying he was not pressured.

I can't wait to see Jacob Wohl go to jail.

One of us will be happy very soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh huh.

You think it's all hunky dory for Trump to pursue his personal interest at the expense of the country's interest.

I don't.

Personal interest? You mean Ukraine's role in influencing the 2016 election? You think that is HIS personal interest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh huh.

You think it's all hunky dory for Trump to pursue his personal interest at the expense of the country's interest.

I don't.

Personal interest? You mean Ukraine's role in influencing the 2016 election? You think that is HIS personal interest?

The FBI can investigate that legally. He doesn't need his mob-infused fixer to play a rogue foreign policy role to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh huh.

You think it's all hunky dory for Trump to pursue his personal interest at the expense of the country's interest.

I don't.

Personal interest? You mean Ukraine's role in influencing the 2016 election? You think that is HIS personal interest?

If Ukraine really needed to be investigated for influencing the 2016 election, it would have been by the FBI through regular channels, not via the President’s conspiracy theorist personal lawyer. And Trump would’ve told Congress to hold back the aid until that was done. Or the aid would not have had been held back at all. You all have lost track of how anything is supposed to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Giuliani admitted a week before that tweet to talking to the Ukraine about investigating Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine.html

[Anonymous]

An odd fact...Pence was held from this event: https://ua.usembassy.gov/comments-to-the-press-by-u-s-secretary-of-energy-rick-perry-following-president-zelenskyys-inauguration/

and instead, Rick Perry went.

How is it that the Russian knew about this before Americans did? https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1128141760117510145

[Anonymous]

Where was the whistleblower today? Why did we get Adam Schiff? Why can't the whistleblower himself be asked questions?

Schiff knows who the whistleblower is and so does his staff. Many of the news articles cited by the whistleblower are the same news articles cited by Adam Schiff.

Seems Schiff is a leaker and should release his phone records.

The whistleblower complaint was written like a lawyer. One of his lawyers worked for Schumer and Clinton. Why did the whistleblower pick THAT lawyer?

[Anonymous]

Not a single individual who was slated to monitor the Presidents calls used the whistleblower act to report any of this. Because there was nothing to tell. Instead we are to believe they were concerned, so told the whistleblower instead? Really?

[Anonymous]

I would like one Trump supporter to explain to me why Rudy Crazy-Eyes Giuliani needed to go to Ukraine. TIA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a single individual who was slated to monitor the Presidents calls used the whistleblower act to report any of this. Because there was nothing to tell. Instead we are to believe they were concerned, so told the whistleblower instead? Really?

You're surprised by that? You don't think it's believable?

Have you ever used Twitter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a single individual who was slated to monitor the Presidents calls used the whistleblower act to report any of this. Because there was nothing to tell. Instead we are to believe they were concerned, so told the whistleblower instead? Really?

Umm, isn’t the whistleblower someone who was slated to monitor the President’s calls AND activities?

Further, the whistleblower’s letter clearly states that he was told much of this information by people surrounding Trump. That probably includes unnamed individuals in the White House!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where was the whistleblower today? Why did we get Adam Schiff? Why can't the whistleblower himself be asked questions?

Schiff knows who the whistleblower is and so does his staff. Many of the news articles cited by the whistleblower are the same news articles cited by Adam Schiff.

Seems Schiff is a leaker and should release his phone records.

The whistleblower complaint was written like a lawyer. One of his lawyers worked for Schumer and Clinton. Why did the whistleblower pick THAT lawyer?

Because he/she wants to keep right to privacy, as affording by THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTON ACT. Duh.