Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Sorry saw you already corrected

[Anonymous]

Apparently the NYT revealed this info because the White House already had it.

[Anonymous]

Twittler is losing his shit this morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The White House has known about the whistleblower for a LONG TIME.

“The officer first shared information about potential abuse of power and a White House cover-up with the C.I.A.’s top lawyer through an anonymous process. She shared the officer’s concerns with White House and Justice Department officials, following policy.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html#click=https://t.co/r7jd0saQlq

Wow, the NYT really put a Target on the WB back. “She” narrows the field.
And of course the WB is a woman. All the men are too scared.
Just like we need a woman president. Men have shown us they just don’t have the courage or temperament.

Fascinating. It's been reported that the whistleblower is a man...

Whoever it is, it won’t take that long to figure out. Likely someone who was in detail to the WH from the agency. There can’t be that many at any one given time.

Yes, we knew that last week. The identity won't remain secret forever.

You knew what last week? I know many in the intelligence community suspected this right off the bat, but until the NYT revealed it was a CIA analyst non-insiders didn’t have confirmation.

No one knew this last week -- even those on the inside. Trust me.

Last week we knew it was a person in the IC who was detailed to the WH and then went back.

There can't be too many possibilities. But other than having the whistleblower publicly testify, I'm not that interested in his identity.

And I think he'll be publicly testifying pretty soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the NYT revealed this info because the White House already had it.

Evidently the whistleblower first went to the CIA GC.l after the call in July. That GC went straight to the WH. Only after nothing was done did the WB go to the IC IG.

If the times knew that they should have just said that the WH already knew the identity of the WB.

Also, add some more names to the list of people that need to answer questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Twittler is losing his shit this morning.

Hadn't heard that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The ICIG interviewed the people who had given information to the WB and so corroborated the complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Twittler is losing his shit this morning.

Part of me is annoyed we are paying him to sit on his phone, but I case that's less damaging than some of other stuff he could be doing. Could you imagine if an employee in your office went on public twitter rants during office hours??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The White House has known about the whistleblower for a LONG TIME.

“The officer first shared information about potential abuse of power and a White House cover-up with the C.I.A.’s top lawyer through an anonymous process. She shared the officer’s concerns with White House and Justice Department officials, following policy.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html#click=https://t.co/r7jd0saQlq

Wow, the NYT really put a Target on the WB back. “She” narrows the field.
And of course the WB is a woman. All the men are too scared.
Just like we need a woman president. Men have shown us they just don’t have the courage or temperament.

Lots of people already know who it is. Sue Gordon.

I don’t think so.

Me neither. I could be wrong tho.

I kind of hope it is Sue Gordon. It would be poetic justice for Trump to be taken down by women-- Gordon and Pelosi, plus the 6 women in the House with national security backgrounds who wrote the op-ed this week and likely helped move the needle toward impeachment.

Mostly I hope he or she stays safe and is able to maintain anonymity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twittler is losing his shit this morning.

Part of me is annoyed we are paying him to sit on his phone, but I case that's less damaging than some of other stuff he could be doing. Could you imagine if an employee in your office went on public twitter rants during office hours??

Nah, as long as he's on his phone, he's being given rope to hang himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don't like about the whistleblower complaint is that it's all hearsay.

But it sounds like the people that the whistleblower heard from were interviewed so hopefully there is a LOT of corroboration.

I would think that the actual transcript can and will be retrieved from the secret server.

The thing is, Giuliani and Trump have already admitted to the contours of the issue, even of the whistleblower complaint is ALL heresay and has details wrong.

Facts: Trump used Congressionally authorized funds as leverage to conduct personal campaign gains. That is illegal on two fronts. Giulianii has been serving as an unpaid government envoy to conduct said policy. That is 2 or 3 counts of illegality. Giuliani is implicating the Pompeo State Department. Mulvaney illegally withheld the funds; Pence met with the Ukrainian president to reaffirm the con and Barr has been systemic in the cover-up.

All of this is either admitted to or prima facia.

That is not a fact at all. That is what the left is pushing. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. And, even the Ukrainian president denied it.

Look at the time line. In front of Trump, of course the Ukrainian president is going to deny it. Others in the government have affirmed it and the timeline validates it.

Good timeline here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1059481?__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twittler is losing his shit this morning.

Part of me is annoyed we are paying him to sit on his phone, but I case that's less damaging than some of other stuff he could be doing. Could you imagine if an employee in your office went on public twitter rants during office hours??

Nah, as long as he's on his phone, he's being given rope to hang himself.

How long is the drop? Hasn’t he got enough rope yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incorrect information in the whistleblower's complaint....

The complaint stated that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike" -- a request that does not appear in the declassified transcript of the call released by the Trump administration on Tuesday. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike, but did not demand the server.

And according to the whistleblower complaint, by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to "contain the damage" from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine.

But a July 19 text message conversation from Volker to Giuliani, provided to Fox News on Thursday, showed that Volker had in fact encouraged Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine -- even sending Giuliani a message reading, "connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky."

Additionally, the complaint said Trump "suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep" his current prosecutor general, a claim not supported by the transcript.

CBS News reported late Thursday that the whistleblower complaint further inaccurately claimed that a State Department official was on the call with Zelensky.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-whistleblowers-sources-citing-apparent-white-house-leak-problem

This “error” assumes that we got the entire contents of the call. It wasn’t a transcript. And if you speak all of the words in what we got, it takes 11 minutes. The call was reported to be more than twice as long is that. Senator Feinstein has already demanded the entire call, so I guess we’ll see.

In other words, you’re going to speculate to dispel fact. LOL

You and Fox are assuming we have the entire call. No one ever said we did.

Here’s the demand for the entire call from the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incorrect information in the whistleblower's complaint....

The complaint stated that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike" -- a request that does not appear in the declassified transcript of the call released by the Trump administration on Tuesday. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike, but did not demand the server.

And according to the whistleblower complaint, by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to "contain the damage" from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine.

But a July 19 text message conversation from Volker to Giuliani, provided to Fox News on Thursday, showed that Volker had in fact encouraged Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine -- even sending Giuliani a message reading, "connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky."

Additionally, the complaint said Trump "suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep" his current prosecutor general, a claim not supported by the transcript.

CBS News reported late Thursday that the whistleblower complaint further inaccurately claimed that a State Department official was on the call with Zelensky.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-whistleblowers-sources-citing-apparent-white-house-leak-problem

This “error” assumes that we got the entire contents of the call. It wasn’t a transcript. And if you speak all of the words in what we got, it takes 11 minutes. The call was reported to be more than twice as long is that. Senator Feinstein has already demanded the entire call, so I guess we’ll see.

In other words, you’re going to speculate to dispel fact. LOL

You and Fox are assuming we have the entire call. No one ever said we did.

Here’s the demand for the entire call from the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

The WSJ said "eight times". That came from somewhere.

Does dispel PP think they're Fake News too?

[Anonymous]

This may have been discussed but - Why the hell would Barr lower himself for Trump??? What is he thinking today? He has been silent.