Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Can anyone here tell me why Pelosi announced impeachment when the transcript had not been released?

Answer: She and Dems had the report of the whistleblower, which looked damaging. They didn't expect for Trump to release the actual transcript. When he did, it created an incongruence between what the whistleblower said he said, and what he actually said. So then, there had to be a re-interpretation of the transcript to fit the whistleblower's report. The most comment reinterpretation is that it was altered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone here tell me why Pelosi announced impeachment when the transcript had not been released?

Answer: She and Dems had the report of the whistleblower, which looked damaging. They didn't expect for Trump to release the actual transcript. When he did, it created an incongruence between what the whistleblower said he said, and what he actually said. So then, there had to be a re-interpretation of the transcript to fit the whistleblower's report. The most comment reinterpretation is that it was altered.

Umm, no...

Because she had the votes. Because Trump crossed the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone here tell me why Pelosi announced impeachment when the transcript had not been released?

Answer: She and Dems had the report of the whistleblower, which looked damaging. They didn't expect for Trump to release the actual transcript. When he did, it created an incongruence between what the whistleblower said he said, and what he actually said. So then, there had to be a re-interpretation of the transcript to fit the whistleblower's report. The most comment reinterpretation is that it was altered.

Wasn't it the WSJ who said Trump importuned Zelensky 8 times? Why do you think they said that?

[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?

Especially since Politico reported Ukraine admitted helping HILLARY in 2016

[Anonymous]

Schiff knows who the whistleblower is and so does his staff.

Source? Other than your own *ss?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone here tell me why Pelosi announced impeachment when the transcript had not been released?

Answer: She and Dems had the report of the whistleblower, which looked damaging. They didn't expect for Trump to release the actual transcript. When he did, it created an incongruence between what the whistleblower said he said, and what he actually said. So then, there had to be a re-interpretation of the transcript to fit the whistleblower's report. The most comment reinterpretation is that it was altered.

The buffoon in the OO admitted he extorted the president of Ukraine...with US resources as leverage. You add that to the myriad of impeachable offenses Trump has committed over 3 years, what the hell does Pelosi need to wait for??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If it was so alarming, then why didn't any of the primary listeners report it using the whistleblower act?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Ummmm. No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So we get a lawyer written letter and Schiff? Use your brain here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Ummmm. No

Says who? Other than your own *ss?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So we get a lawyer written letter and Schiff? Use your brain here.

You seem to have use yours all up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Christ, these Trumpers don’t have two brain cells to rub together. And — oh yeah — the whistleblower doesn’t want to be killed by Trump’s goons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone here tell me why Pelosi announced impeachment when the transcript had not been released?

Answer: She and Dems had the report of the whistleblower, which looked damaging. They didn't expect for Trump to release the actual transcript. When he did, it created an incongruence between what the whistleblower said he said, and what he actually said. So then, there had to be a re-interpretation of the transcript to fit the whistleblower's report. The most comment reinterpretation is that it was altered.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone here tell me why Pelosi announced impeachment when the transcript had not been released?

Answer: She and Dems had the report of the whistleblower, which looked damaging. They didn't expect for Trump to release the actual transcript. When he did, it created an incongruence between what the whistleblower said he said, and what he actually said. So then, there had to be a re-interpretation of the transcript to fit the whistleblower's report. The most comment reinterpretation is that it was altered.

Exactly.

Nope.

[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.

And what were those reasons? Do you know the reasons, or is that heresay?

Point 3 -- It was a WH lawyers who told the WH officials to lock the electronic transcript down. How is that hearesay?

You mean that the WH lawyers didn't tell the WH officials to do this?

Or that the WH officials didn't actually do it?

Or that there was sensitive information and so it should be in a separate server.

I can't decide which one is the hearsay.