Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NY Times: the whistleblower is a CIA analyst who was detailed to the White House https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html

On the one hand this information confirms to a larger audience the whistleblower's expertise in Ukrainian matters and politics; on the other this means people in the WH now know who he is based on that information. Given Trump's threatening language today about dealing with him and his sources, maybe he should go into the witness protection program until there's a new administration...

Or, this could be like the WaPo report yesterday that ADNI Maguire was planning to resign........
Sorry, not putting a lot of credibility on anything coming out in the media.

That's because you yourself aren't credible when you twist the WaPo report. It wasn't that he was "planning to resign," it was that he said he would resign if he didn't get to testify. How do you know that's wrong? I personally don't believe him when he says he didn't put it that way. Because no official in this administration is credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its all hearsay..... nothing to see here and nothing which will hold water anyhow.

Don't use words you don't understand well enough to use correctly in context.

Its all second hand information, this person didn't see or hear any of it themselves. That's hearsay...

That’s bullsh!t, the whistleblower said most activities were not directly witnessed, not all.

That gets my 'spidey senses' tingling. That's a slippery statement if I've ever heard one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's hear the phone call that they tried to get rid of... The actual call, not the made up transcript. Let's ger Rudy under oath.

Anybody with half a brain can see that this President is unfit after reading that complaint.

That's not going to happen. It won't happen and it shouldn't, either.

Move on without it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its all hearsay..... nothing to see here and nothing which will hold water anyhow.

Don't use words you don't understand well enough to use correctly in context.

Its all second hand information, this person didn't see or hear any of it themselves. That's hearsay...

We’re not on a jury, we’re opening an investigation.

If you called the police and told them you heard your business partner murdered his wife, and multiple people who worked for you gave you detailed reports about your business partner murdering his wife, what would the police say?

Obviously investigate. But to open an investigation into impeaching the president without ANY first hand accounts is odd. None of those people would have come out with the whistle blower to collaborate this?

First the police would have to determine that the wife is missing or dead.

I think everyone is in agreement that the aid to Ukraine went missing for months and months.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I hear another Republican mouthpiece say in the media they haven't yet read it even though it's now 3:30 pm I'll scream. It's obviously very threatening as nothing this important that's released in DC is left unread for hours by the political gadflies in this town. They have NO idea how to respond to this fiasco.

I agree completely. "I haven't read it yet" is code for "I've read it and don't have a good comeback."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's hear the phone call that they tried to get rid of... The actual call, not the made up transcript. Let's ger Rudy under oath.

Anybody with half a brain can see that this President is unfit after reading that complaint.

That's not going to happen. It won't happen and it shouldn't, either.

Move on without it.

Anonymous wrote:Let's hear the phone call that they tried to get rid of... The actual call, not the made up transcript. Let's ger Rudy under oath.

Anybody with half a brain can see that this President is unfit after reading that complaint.

Anonymous wrote:If I hear another Republican mouthpiece say in the media they haven't yet read it even though it's now 3:30 pm I'll scream. It's obviously very threatening as nothing this important that's released in DC is left unread for hours by the political gadflies in this town. They have NO idea how to respond to this fiasco.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its all hearsay..... nothing to see here and nothing which will hold water anyhow.

Don't use words you don't understand well enough to use correctly in context.

Its all second hand information, this person didn't see or hear any of it themselves. That's hearsay...

That’s bullsh!t, the whistleblower said most activities were not directly witnessed, not all.

That gets my 'spidey senses' tingling. That's a slippery statement if I've ever heard one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its all hearsay..... nothing to see here and nothing which will hold water anyhow.

Don't use words you don't understand well enough to use correctly in context.

Its all second hand information, this person didn't see or hear any of it themselves. That's hearsay...

That’s bullsh!t, the whistleblower said most activities were not directly witnessed, not all.

That gets my 'spidey senses' tingling. That's a slippery statement if I've ever heard one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its all hearsay..... nothing to see here and nothing which will hold water anyhow.

Don't use words you don't understand well enough to use correctly in context.

Its all second hand information, this person didn't see or hear any of it themselves. That's hearsay...

We’re not on a jury, we’re opening an investigation.

If you called the police and told them you heard your business partner murdered his wife, and multiple people who worked for you gave you detailed reports about your business partner murdering his wife, what would the police say?

Obviously investigate. But to open an investigation into impeaching the president without ANY first hand accounts is odd. None of those people would have come out with the whistle blower to collaborate this?

First the police would have to determine that the wife is missing or dead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its all hearsay..... nothing to see here and nothing which will hold water anyhow.

Don't use words you don't understand well enough to use correctly in context.

Its all second hand information, this person didn't see or hear any of it themselves. That's hearsay...

That’s bullsh!t, the whistleblower said most activities were not directly witnessed, not all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its all hearsay..... nothing to see here and nothing which will hold water anyhow.

Don't use words you don't understand well enough to use correctly in context.

Its all second hand information, this person didn't see or hear any of it themselves. That's hearsay...

We’re not on a jury, we’re opening an investigation.

If you called the police and told them you heard your business partner murdered his wife, and multiple people who worked for you gave you detailed reports about your business partner murdering his wife, what would the police say?

Obviously investigate. But to open an investigation into impeaching the president without ANY first hand accounts is odd. None of those people would have come out with the whistle blower to collaborate this?