Whistleblower complaint released

[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.

That is a) wrong; b) out of your own *ss; and c) doesn’t actually prove your theory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See, You have to speculate to make your point. LOL.

[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.

But he didn't intern for Rs now did he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See, You have to speculate to make your point. LOL.

I'm not speculating. I'm laughing at you.

[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?

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:

Whatever. Most lawyers are “Dems” because they aren’t poorly educated.

[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?

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.

But he didn't intern for Rs now did he?

Trump has been a D the majority of his life. Because New York.

[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?

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.

But he didn't intern for Rs now did he?

Because there were no R Senators where he lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, the complaint was not released because it was heresay and couldn't be confirmed.

[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?

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.

Probably. More speculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Again you are making that up. Speculation at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, the complaint was not released because it was heresay and couldn't be confirmed.

Wrong thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See, You have to speculate to make your point. LOL.

I'm not speculating. I'm laughing at you.

Go ahead and laugh. The fact is the President of Ukraine said he was not being extorted. You simply invented that he was being pressured.

[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?

Uhhh...did Trump run for election in 2016 or not? Was he not personally vested in the outcome of the 2016 election or not? Is he running for 2020 or not? Does he not have a personal interest in the outcome of the 2020 election or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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:

Whatever. Most lawyers are “Dems” because they aren’t poorly educated.

Yet more speculation and made up facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But he didn't intern for Rs now did he?

Because there were no R Senators where he lived.

You can intern for any senator you want.