Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

A "perfect" phone call doesn't need to be locked away into a top, super secret, server.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oops

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-investigating-burisma-but-not-when-hunter-biden-was-on-board-idUSKBN1WC1LV?fbclid=IwAR2Xlpcd225wP_RvexLyvIMtSMP8f32oIO3BrQnteNbhQBzxTfQepenR4FU

Doh! Now what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A "perfect" phone call doesn't need to be locked away into a top, super secret, server.

Exactly. Me thinketh you protesteth too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-investigating-burisma-but-not-when-hunter-biden-was-on-board-idUSKBN1WC1LV?fbclid=IwAR2Xlpcd225wP_RvexLyvIMtSMP8f32oIO3BrQnteNbhQBzxTfQepenR4FU

Doh! Now what?

Make sh*t up. Trump supporters will believe anything that appeals to their feelings.

[Anonymous]

In the call summary, Trump named six people: Merkel, Macron, Mueller, Giuliani, Barr, and Biden

None of those names belonged in the call, especially not in the way that Trump mentioned them.

He can't name anyone who is not either a nemesis or a sycophant, but he describes the unnamed based on whether he thinks they are for or against him -
"your very good prosecutor who was shut down" "
the former ambassador, the woman, who was bad news."

What a lunatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The informant did not file himself. That was my first suspicious moment. Something so devastating and the person doesn’t report it? Then it turned into ‘a pattern of behavior reported by many’. And that was the tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!”??

The facts are right, the only question is if the American public understands, simply and plainly, these actions, why they are wrong, illegal and un-American, and speak out to their Senators to hold the President and his Administration accountable.

Only you ‘elite feds’ get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The informant did not file himself. That was my first suspicious moment. Something so devastating and the person doesn’t report it? Then it turned into ‘a pattern of behavior reported by many’. And that was the tell.

Informant? A whistleblower isn't a spy.

You sound very confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!”??

The facts are right, the only question is if the American public understands, simply and plainly, these actions, why they are wrong, illegal and un-American, and speak out to their Senators to hold the President and his Administration accountable.

Only you ‘elite feds’ get it?

huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-investigating-burisma-but-not-when-hunter-biden-was-on-board-idUSKBN1WC1LV?fbclid=IwAR2Xlpcd225wP_RvexLyvIMtSMP8f32oIO3BrQnteNbhQBzxTfQepenR4FU

Doh! Now what?

The problem with that article, is Biden was on the board of the company that was being investigated and that could affect the company itself. No one is accusing Biden of the corruption, just that his father was trying to stop the investigation to protect his son’s position and company

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-investigating-burisma-but-not-when-hunter-biden-was-on-board-idUSKBN1WC1LV?fbclid=IwAR2Xlpcd225wP_RvexLyvIMtSMP8f32oIO3BrQnteNbhQBzxTfQepenR4FU

Doh! Now what?

The problem with that article, is Biden was on the board of the company that was being investigated and that could affect the company itself. No one is accusing Biden of the corruption, just that his father was trying to stop the investigation to protect his son’s position and company

No, the problem is there's no there there. You are ignoring the last paragraph of the article:

"At the moment, this case is up in the air, so to speak. Up in the air means that there is no active investigative work ongoing. At the moment, detectives and prosecutors do not understand what they are supposed to be investigating,” Kholodnytsky said.

Trump and Giuliani cannot make Zelensky investigate Biden. Because there's nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-investigating-burisma-but-not-when-hunter-biden-was-on-board-idUSKBN1WC1LV?fbclid=IwAR2Xlpcd225wP_RvexLyvIMtSMP8f32oIO3BrQnteNbhQBzxTfQepenR4FU

Doh! Now what?

The problem with that article, is Biden was on the board of the company that was being investigated and that could affect the company itself. No one is accusing Biden of the corruption, just that his father was trying to stop the investigation to protect his son’s position and company

The investigation was for problems that occurred before Biden was at the company. And the entire western world wanted the corrupt prosecutor fired. Give it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The informant did not file himself. That was my first suspicious moment. Something so devastating and the person doesn’t report it? Then it turned into ‘a pattern of behavior reported by many’. And that was the tell.

Informant? A whistleblower isn't a spy.

You sound very confused.

+1. PP, here’s Chris Wallace: "...it is a serious allegation... the whistleblower lays out a blueprint for talking to various officials in the White House... and to dismiss this... seems to me to be an effort by the president's defenders to try to make nothing out of something and there is something here."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The informant did not file himself. That was my first suspicious moment. Something so devastating and the person doesn’t report it? Then it turned into ‘a pattern of behavior reported by many’. And that was the tell.

The WB was in a position that others reported information to and thus was someone who could identify patterns better than the individuals who were seeing discrete actions or episodes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!”??

The facts are right, the only question is if the American public understands, simply and plainly, these actions, why they are wrong, illegal and un-American, and speak out to their Senators to hold the President and his Administration accountable.

Only you ‘elite feds’ get it?

huh?

Exactly!! Elite fed?! Biggest oxymoron ever. Some of the post here are comically bewildering.