Anonymous wrote:Seems that this, too, is #FakeNews.



Mike Sacks
@MikeSacksEsq
NEW: Whistleblower's lawyer
@MarkSZaidEsq
tells me: "60 Minutes completely misinterpreted the contents of our letter."

The letter says nothing - NOTHING - about federal protection:

https://compassrosepllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019_0928_-Correspondence-to-HPSCI-and-SSCI-with-Enclosure.pdf

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1178476272969801729

Classic

Anonymous wrote:Does the accused not have a right to face his accuser?

No. WTF?

Seems that this, too, is #FakeNews.



Mike Sacks
@MikeSacksEsq
NEW: Whistleblower's lawyer
@MarkSZaidEsq
tells me: "60 Minutes completely misinterpreted the contents of our letter."

The letter says nothing - NOTHING - about federal protection:

https://compassrosepllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019_0928_-Correspondence-to-HPSCI-and-SSCI-with-Enclosure.pdf

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1178476272969801729

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Barr recused himself yet? Has Trump been firewalled? It's kind of pointless to put the dude in protection if one of the subjects can find where he is with a simple phone call.

Barr will not recuse because there is no reason for him to.

You mean other than being named as an accomplice by Trump?

How so?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

So if your daughter told you that she was raped, you wouldn't report it to the police because that would be gossip?

Oh wait. No. I know how you will answer that one. Let me reformulate to your worldview.

If thousands of scientists claimed that global warming was real and a threat to human civilization, you would keep that to yourself, right, because you aren't a scientist and have no firsthand knowledge of such things.

Nope, that's not it.

If you were told that U.S. astronauts landed on the moon, you wouldn't believe it because you weren't there. Gossip right?

Am I getting hotter?

If Sean Hannity told you Hillary Clinton kept classified information on a private server, you wouldn't believe him right, because you've never seen the server yourself. Right?

Closer. Got it.

If the WaPo reported that Donald Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue, you wouldn't believe them. You weren't there. The reporter wasn't there. All those witnesses are liberals. Gossip. Hearsay.

Here's the thing. Trump supporters have shown again and again and again that facts mean nothing to them. So when you label something as gossip or hearsay, it sounds like a tiny snowflake falling on a mountain a thousand miles away. Your words are meaningless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Barr recused himself yet? Has Trump been firewalled? It's kind of pointless to put the dude in protection if one of the subjects can find where he is with a simple phone call.

Barr will not recuse because there is no reason for him to.

You mean other than being named as an accomplice by Trump?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

The ICIG says this isn't gossip.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the accused not have a right to face his accuser?

In a court, yes. So the accuser should be safe until that time, n'est-ce pas?

Just like Jeffrey Epstein was "safe."

Of course I am glad he has gone on to hell, but look how quickly everyone forgot about THAT.

No one is safe under the rule of this moron.

God bless the WB!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

grow up. You have no excuse for this drivel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

This is slimy. Like you should be embarrassed for your total and complete lack of patriotism slimy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

And if I didn't want to have to answer any questions, I would say I was scared of being killed by angry mobs.

Anonymous wrote:Has Barr recused himself yet? Has Trump been firewalled? It's kind of pointless to put the dude in protection if one of the subjects can find where he is with a simple phone call.

Barr will not recuse because there is no reason for him to.

Anonymous wrote:Does the accused not have a right to face his accuser?

In a court, yes. So the accuser should be safe until that time, n'est-ce pas?

Has Barr recused himself yet? Has Trump been firewalled? It's kind of pointless to put the dude in protection if one of the subjects can find where he is with a simple phone call.

Does the accused not have a right to face his accuser?