Whistleblower complaint released

[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.

[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.

Do tell what’s different about the complaint’s version of the call and Trump’s.

[Anonymous]

Gosh, I thought all the IC and LEA loved Trump, according to Trumpsters.

[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?

One of his lawyers interned for Schumer for five months and for Clinton for five months, seemingly while he was in college. Long before he went to law school. If you have to work that hard to create an appearance of bias, you fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I thought all the IC and LEA loved Trump, according to Trumpsters.

They didn’t swear an oath to uphold Trump.

[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?

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?

Because they were acting unethically.

You: Trump didn't report himself, therefore it must not be a concern.
Everyone else: Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Source? Other than your own *ss?

They moved to impeach before the transcript came out. They knew what was in the phone call (or thought they did) because they had the whistleblower's lawyer-written letter already.

[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.

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??

So she moved to impeach over what you feel was an extortion, but the President of Ukraine said he wasn't extorted? That's a winning argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?

Because they were acting unethically.

You: Trump didn't report himself, therefore it must not be a concern.
Everyone else: Nope.

Are you saying it would be unethical for the primary listeners to use the whistleblower act to report an impeachable offense?

[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?

One of his lawyers interned for Schumer for five months and for Clinton for five months, seemingly while he was in college. Long before he went to law school. If you have to work that hard to create an appearance of bias, you fail.

+1. This was EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO. And he’s probably from New York, and those were the only Senators available for internships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Source? Other than your own *ss?

They moved to impeach before the transcript came out. They knew what was in the phone call (or thought they did) because they had the whistleblower's lawyer-written letter already.

They moved to impeach because the White House was illegally blocking the release of the complaint to the House. When the ICIG has instructed that a complaint be sent to the House Intelligence Committee and the White House intervenes to prevent that from happening, it's not a huge leap to assume that the White House has done this to protect itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Source? Other than your own *ss?

They moved to impeach before the transcript came out. They knew what was in the phone call (or thought they did) because they had the whistleblower's lawyer-written letter already.

They moved to impeach because Trump.

More pragmatically, because they had the votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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??

So she moved to impeach over what you feel was an extortion, but the President of Ukraine said he wasn't extorted? That's a winning argument.

He said he wasn’t extorted right next to the extorter. Would you ask your friend if her husband is beating her in front of him and expect to get a valid answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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??

So she moved to impeach over what you feel was an extortion, but the President of Ukraine said he wasn't extorted? That's a winning argument.

Right? Because the president of Ukraine is going to say that Trump pressured him inappropriately.

Use your brain.

[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?

One of his lawyers interned for Schumer for five months and for Clinton for five months, seemingly while he was in college. Long before he went to law school. If you have to work that hard to create an appearance of bias, you fail.

The lawyers have much more than that re: links to Clinton and other Dems: