Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When will Democrats hold a roll call vote to authorize the effort? It’s nothing more than in inquiry at the moment. Why won’t they go on record officially supporting impeachment?

There are already 218 Congressmen who have gone on the record as supporting the inquiry.

[Anonymous]

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

He sought out this job - and he had to know what he was signing up for. It's not like Trump's special mix of corruption and incompetence was a secret. Who the heck knows why he pursued this disgusting path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is where the WH blew it. The CIA detailed snitched to the CIA GC. The CIA IG immediately did her job. She urgently tipped off the White House and gave them what they needed to erase the danger.

In the end, though, she could only lead the horse to water. You can’t expect a politically-appointed CIA IG to erase the snitch without leaving tons of fingerprints, even with her prior service in CIA under Bush-Cheney. It’s very hard to figure out which wet work specialists would actually take out a colleague for the good of POTUS. That’s not something you cover in an interview. Nor is the GC going to have her own Blackwater on retainer.

No, the WH needed to have its own unit(s) on call for this kind of project. That’s why the President needed to arrange for Putin to deliver at least one squad to be stationed in the U.S, at the President’s disposal. If he didn’t do this because he was too scared or, worse, too CHEAP to move forward...well, he’ll rue the day for the rest of life.

[Anonymous]

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

Look at the law firm where he was a partner, who it represents and who we worked for.

Hint: they own a server that was connected to Trump's server and Erik Prince's server before the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will Democrats hold a roll call vote to authorize the effort? It’s nothing more than in inquiry at the moment. Why won’t they go on record officially supporting impeachment?

There are already 218 Congressmen who have gone on the record as supporting the inquiry.

Yes. Also, there's a difference between the investigation and the official hearings. I think the investigation has officially been opened. The hearings will come later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is where the WH blew it. The CIA detailed snitched to the CIA GC. The CIA IG immediately did her job. She urgently tipped off the White House and gave them what they needed to erase the danger.

In the end, though, she could only lead the horse to water. You can’t expect a politically-appointed CIA IG to erase the snitch without leaving tons of fingerprints, even with her prior service in CIA under Bush-Cheney. It’s very hard to figure out which wet work specialists would actually take out a colleague for the good of POTUS. That’s not something you cover in an interview. Nor is the GC going to have her own Blackwater on retainer.

No, the WH needed to have its own unit(s) on call for this kind of project. That’s why the President needed to arrange for Putin to deliver at least one squad to be stationed in the U.S, at the President’s disposal. If he didn’t do this because he was too scared or, worse, too CHEAP to move forward...well, he’ll rue the day for the rest of life.

Sorry, CIA detailee snitched to the CIA GC first. Bad typing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Twittler is losing his shit this morning.

Indeed. I try not to look most days but couldn’t help myself this morning.

I’d pity those that have to put up with him in person during these rampages but they all knew what they were getting themselves into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is where the WH blew it. The CIA detailed snitched to the CIA GC. The CIA IG immediately did her job. She urgently tipped off the White House and gave them what they needed to erase the danger.

In the end, though, she could only lead the horse to water. You can’t expect a politically-appointed CIA IG to erase the snitch without leaving tons of fingerprints, even with her prior service in CIA under Bush-Cheney. It’s very hard to figure out which wet work specialists would actually take out a colleague for the good of POTUS. That’s not something you cover in an interview. Nor is the GC going to have her own Blackwater on retainer.

No, the WH needed to have its own unit(s) on call for this kind of project. That’s why the President needed to arrange for Putin to deliver at least one squad to be stationed in the U.S, at the President’s disposal. If he didn’t do this because he was too scared or, worse, too CHEAP to move forward...well, he’ll rue the day for the rest of life.

C-

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Twittler is losing his shit this morning.

He really doesn’t know what hyphen is.

“To show you how dishonest the LameStream Media is, I used the word Liddle’, not Liddle, in discribing Corrupt Congressman Liddle’ Adam Schiff. Low ratings @CNN purposely took the hyphen out and said I spelled the word little wrong. A small but never ending situation with CNN!”

[Anonymous]

If they don’t, whistleblowers should get protection just like witsec. Trump is trying to get this person killed. It worked with Epstein. We’re not even talking about him. He’s old news already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will Democrats hold a roll call vote to authorize the effort? It’s nothing more than in inquiry at the moment. Why won’t they go on record officially supporting impeachment?

There are already 218 Congressmen who have gone on the record as supporting the inquiry.

When it comes back to bite them, they will say "I supported the inquiry, not the actual impeachment". Cowards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will Democrats hold a roll call vote to authorize the effort? It’s nothing more than in inquiry at the moment. Why won’t they go on record officially supporting impeachment?

There are already 218 Congressmen who have gone on the record as supporting the inquiry.

When it comes back to bite them, they will say "I supported the inquiry, not the actual impeachment". Cowards

Yes, that’s what they’re supporting now. The inquiry.

[Anonymous]

He's over. It is done. Question is only how many people are going down with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff had taken the time to look at the criteria for complaints, they would understand why this was not passed on.
This complaint should not have ever made it to Congress based on these criteria.

They know this already. That's why they haven't made a vote. All of this is political posturing for 20/20 in coordination with the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff had taken the time to look at the criteria for complaints, they would understand why this was not passed on.
This complaint should not have ever made it to Congress based on these criteria.

To me, that is evidence the criteria need to be a loosened a bit. One cannot have a corrupt President protected by his immediate witnesses who because of a stupid these rules escapes from all consequences of his corruption.

If the rules don't fit the narrative, change them