Whistleblower complaint released

[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.

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.

No, it's because you haven't bothered to read 9 pages. Two of those are an addendum, so you only need to read 7 pages.

SMH

[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.

There's that word again...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The rules fit, except for the executive privilege bit, because the rules don't contemplate the president being the direct subject of a whistleblower report. Other than that, the report is credible and urgent.

Read it. OP linked to it on the first post.

[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.

There's that word again...

Feinstein doesn’t think we have the whole call either. No one except Fox assumes that we get the whole truth from this administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These words are often repeated in so many threads and in so many Twitter feeds, yet it seems to always end up with walkbacks, etc. How fast did Schiff apologize for his "parody" yesterday? But here's the thing - Schiff knows a lot of people will never hear the fact that he was speculating and are taking his "parody" as truth. That's the game.

Even John Solomon confirmed the timeline.

Why are you defending the president's solicitation of foreign dirt on a political opponent and endangering a strategic foreign relationship in the process? Is that something that all presidents should be doing? All politicians? Why do you think this is excusable or acceptable presidential behavior?

[Anonymous]

The stuff in the whistleblower report was substantiated before it was brought out. Trump is done.

This is very easy for anyone to understand.

Also it is very easy for anyone to grasp that he threatened the life of the whistleblower and people who talked to him. He used the same kind of language to inflame his base before the El Paso shooting too.

Releasing the summary of the call was a huge mistake. Why anyone thought it was a "perfect call" no one can say. Only delusional.

[Anonymous]

The summary of the call is the shakedown. The White House provided that information.

The White House has acknowledged that the Ukraine transcript was filed in a separate classified system under the direction of NSC attorneys. That is part of a cover up.

Trump has now threatened the Whistleblower.

There are three counts for impeachment that are open and publicly know.

The rest are details - who put the files into the secret server? Who authorized and facilitated Rudy's activities? Who told Mulvaney to hold the Congressionally authorized funds? Etc.

[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.

That's your first clue the narrative is off - having to ask these kinds of questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The stuff in the whistleblower report was substantiated before it was brought out. Trump is done.

This is very easy for anyone to understand.

Also it is very easy for anyone to grasp that he threatened the life of the whistleblower and people who talked to him. He used the same kind of language to inflame his base before the El Paso shooting too.

Releasing the summary of the call was a huge mistake. Why anyone thought it was a "perfect call" no one can say. Only delusional.

I want you to be right but you seem overly confident to me. How many times since the campaign have we thought “that’s it he’s toast!”??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

No, it's because you haven't bothered to read 9 pages. Two of those are an addendum, so you only need to read 7 pages.

SMH

Actually, I have. Carefully written by a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's your first clue the narrative is off - having to ask these kinds of questions.

The story certainly is awful. The whistleblower report shows a president who is wholly unlawful and self-serving, harming US interests while pursuing his own.

There's a reason we give military aid to Ukraine. Does Trump even know what that reason is?

Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

No, it's because you haven't bothered to read 9 pages. Two of those are an addendum, so you only need to read 7 pages.

SMH

Actually, I have. Carefully written by a lawyer.

Then how can you claim that it doesn't meet the criteria for a whistleblower complaint? It does.

Besides having the ICIG say so, we can read it ourselves and see that it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These words are often repeated in so many threads and in so many Twitter feeds, yet it seems to always end up with walkbacks, etc. How fast did Schiff apologize for his "parody" yesterday? But here's the thing - Schiff knows a lot of people will never hear the fact that he was speculating and are taking his "parody" as truth. That's the game.

Even John Solomon confirmed the timeline.

Why are you defending the president's solicitation of foreign dirt on a political opponent and endangering a strategic foreign relationship in the process? Is that something that all presidents should be doing? All politicians? Why do you think this is excusable or acceptable presidential behavior?

Actually, the Ukranian president brought it up first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The stuff in the whistleblower report was substantiated before it was brought out. Trump is done.

This is very easy for anyone to understand.

Also it is very easy for anyone to grasp that he threatened the life of the whistleblower and people who talked to him. He used the same kind of language to inflame his base before the El Paso shooting too.

Releasing the summary of the call was a huge mistake. Why anyone thought it was a "perfect call" no one can say. Only delusional.

I want you to be right but you seem overly confident to me. How many times since the campaign have we thought “that’s it he’s toast!”??

This is the first time we've had incriminating information that has been corroborated by:

- Trump himself.

- A document released by the White House.

It's also the first time the Senate has unanimously voted to get the WH to provide that information. It's also the first time the Democrats have opened an official impeachment inquiry and have had majority support for it.

You have to realize this is different, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's your first clue the narrative is off - having to ask these kinds of questions.

So many questions we never thought we'd have to ask! How many porn stars did the president pay off? How many stories did the National Enquirer bury for the president? How many private servers were the presidents' children using for government email? How many millions of dollars do taxpayers have to pay for the president's golf game? How many public officials will the president fire over twitter? How many foreign nationals seeking favors from the US government will stay at Trump hotels?