Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Jeff should delete all argument about a change in whistle blower rules. It brings nothing to the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here come all the leaks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.?The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the day before had relieved “great pressure” on him.

I can't access the article, so can you tell us who is the source of this information?

Already used up all of your free articles?

Yes. So...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Jeff should delete all argument about a change in whistle blower rules. It brings nothing to the discussion.

It’s ok. It shows how delusional the cult is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Jeff should delete all argument about a change in whistle blower rules. It brings nothing to the discussion.

Why? Does it make you nervous? Why do you care otherwise? Many people think it's completely relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I messed up the placement of my response to the above post:

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW hearsay.

Read the article.

Smh. This is completely outrageous and the crafters are having a good laugh. Laugh now, savor it now.

I could be wrong.

This indicates that this is a political hit job. The timing is everything.

The complaint isn’t hearsay and it is true. It is being investigated and validated properly but Trump and Giuliani and the White House have admitted all the major allegations. So the Whistleblower rules change had no effect on this.

It is hearsay. Changing the rules after complaint was filed--which is the way it appears-- is not the way things are usually done. This was orchestrated and staged by way more than one guy/girl and a lawyer.

Grabbing onto anything, are you? It won't save you. Or Trump.

Rules change. It happens. Are you a fed, do you know any feds? "Orchestrated and staged" -- seems like you probably don't.

Actually, I've been one for many years and know many. I know that things don't mysteriously get changed after a grievance has been filed. Rules change--but, not like this.

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here come all the leaks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.?The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the day before had relieved “great pressure” on him.

I can't access the article, so can you tell us who is the source of this information?

Already used up all of your free articles?

Yes. So...?

Nvm. Found it in another thread. So, as expected, "anonymous sources." Why did they wait so long to speak about it? What kind of patriots are they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here come all the leaks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.?The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the day before had relieved “great pressure” on him.

I can't access the article, so can you tell us who is the source of this information?

Already used up all of your free articles?

Yes. So...?

Nvm. Found it in another thread. So, as expected, "anonymous sources." Why did they wait so long to speak about it? What kind of patriots are they?

They're not patriots. They're Trumpers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here come all the leaks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.?The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the day before had relieved “great pressure” on him.

I can't access the article, so can you tell us who is the source of this information?

Already used up all of your free articles?

Yes. So...?

Nvm. Found it in another thread. So, as expected, "anonymous sources." Why did they wait so long to speak about it? What kind of patriots are they?

What kind of patriot is Trump?

[Anonymous]

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jeff should delete all argument about a change in whistle blower rules. It brings nothing to the discussion.

Why? Does it make you nervous? Why do you care otherwise? Many people think it's completely relevant.

It clutters up the thread when I scroll through, and I honestly don't understand the point people on both sides are trying to make. We have a President who has apparently said such egregious things to Putin and MBS that the records weren't given out to the usual folks, and Trump released the *comparatively safe* Ukraine convo.

Nobody cares how/when the whistle-blowing rules changed, since the focus will be on getting to the bottom of the Ukraine thing, and perhaps getting those sensitive transcripts to the Intelligence committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here come all the leaks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.?The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the day before had relieved “great pressure” on him.

I can't access the article, so can you tell us who is the source of this information?

Already used up all of your free articles?

Yes. So...?

Nvm. Found it in another thread. So, as expected, "anonymous sources." Why did they wait so long to speak about it? What kind of patriots are they?

They're not patriots. They're Trumpers.

If they were Trumpers, we wouldn't be hearing from them. They must be Democrats. That meeting was 2.5 years ago. I guess they feel like their jobs working for a president they don't respect are in jeopardy now with the impeachment, so they have nothing to lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

OK, you should really start your own thread entitled: "Whistle-blower rule changes".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

That's your hope talking. No, the complaint is accurate.

Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

What percent of it? How do you know for sure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

That's your hope talking. No, the complaint is accurate.

Sorry.

Indeed. Please annotate the complaint and explain what's not accurate. -NP