Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this not a bigger deal than it is? Is the rule of law officially dead?

You mean other than opening an impeachment investigation and holding a hearing on this very thing? How could it be a bigger deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this not a bigger deal than it is? Is the rule of law officially dead?

You mean other than opening an impeachment investigation and holding a hearing on this very thing? How could it be a bigger deal?

NP. Maybe he/she means why don’t the Republicans think this is not a big deal? Look at their line of questioning. It’s sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure they know what’s up? So much has been hyped and subsequently walked back in the past few years that I’d be much more careful things. Have people forgotten how wrong they’ve been?

READ OP’S LINK BEFORE YOU POST NONSENSE

[Anonymous]

One thing not to be overlooked in the whistleblower complaint:

The complainant put the timeline at four months ending in August.

That pulls the criminal activity all the way back to before Barr testified on May 1.

That makes Barr's testimony with Sen. Harris quite suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure they know what’s up? So much has been hyped and subsequently walked back in the past few years that I’d be much more careful things. Have people forgotten how wrong they’ve been?

Wrong about what? Nothing has been walked back. The only things that haven't happened (yet) are the consequences for Trump's behavior (many others have gone to jail though). What's wrong is that Sen. McConnell so far refuses to uphold the Constitution and see this through to the end justice requires.

[Anonymous]

You guys are talking about a whistle blower report from someone who claims to have never been a witness to any of the activities.

THIS
IS
NOT
TRUE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You guys are talking about a whistle blower report from someone who claims to have never been a witness to any of the activities.

THIS
IS
NOT
TRUE

+1 See White House talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You guys are talking about a whistle blower report from someone who claims to have never been a witness to any of the activities.

THIS
IS
NOT
TRUE

+1 See White House talking points.

Moreover the whistleblower's account of the phone call turned out to be 100% accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so sure they know what’s up? So much has been hyped and subsequently walked back in the past few years that I’d be much more careful things. Have people forgotten how wrong they’ve been?

READ OP’S LINK BEFORE YOU POST NONSENSE

WORK ON YOUR READING COMPREHENSION AND CRITICAL THINKING BEFORE YOU NEXT USE THE WORD ‘NONSENSE’!

[Anonymous]

Okay so we need the actual transcript of the conversation instead of the memorandum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing not to be overlooked in the whistleblower complaint:

The complainant put the timeline at four months ending in August.

That pulls the criminal activity all the way back to before Barr testified on May 1.

That makes Barr's testimony with Sen. Harris quite suspect.

Hmm. Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay so we need the actual transcript of the conversation instead of the memorandum.

+100 But I fear we will never receive this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing not to be overlooked in the whistleblower complaint:

The complainant put the timeline at four months ending in August.

That pulls the criminal activity all the way back to before Barr testified on May 1.

That makes Barr's testimony with Sen. Harris quite suspect.

Here’s the testimony:
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1176899237054992390?s=21

It was already suspect because he so obviously didn’t fully answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay so we need the actual transcript of the conversation instead of the memorandum.

I agree, although the memorandum--if not an accurate portrayal of the call--would probably be spun to make the call look BETTER for Trump, not worse, so if there's any daylight between the two, it probably means the transcript is worse for him.

Moreover, the complaint and the memorandum corroborate each other.

I see no reason to not believe the whistleblower, when the White House itself released a memo that corroborated the complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so we need the actual transcript of the conversation instead of the memorandum.

+100 But I fear we will never receive this.

I bet Vladimir Putin has one as Russia monitors all Ukrainian government communications.