Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Zero firsthand evidence. How is that a whistleblower???

Good, so there's no need to out him or make his life miserable.

Good thing so many people are coming forward now to share their firsthand knowledge of Trump's abuse of office.

So, there was no need for a "whistleblower" in the first place, if there was all of this firsthand knowledge.

Good! We agree!

whistleblower is not longer relevant. He did what he was supposed to do - report concerns.
He reported to the right place, as outlined above.

Glad you agree there's a lot of evidence now to deal with.

Not sure we agree. I said "in the first place"...you said "not longer relevant"....which means you think he was relevant at some point prior to now.

NP. He reported information that has been fully corroborated by the published testimonies of multiple people, as well as the published transcript of the 25 July call.

What's your issue?

It wasn't fully corroborated. For example, the WB complaint alleged that the Ukrainians knew the funds were withheld in early August. Ambassador Taylor testified under oath that the Ukrainians did not know until August 29.

Other evidence shows early August.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Zero firsthand evidence. How is that a whistleblower???

Good, so there's no need to out him or make his life miserable.

Good thing so many people are coming forward now to share their firsthand knowledge of Trump's abuse of office.

So, there was no need for a "whistleblower" in the first place, if there was all of this firsthand knowledge.

Good! We agree!

whistleblower is not longer relevant. He did what he was supposed to do - report concerns.
He reported to the right place, as outlined above.

Glad you agree there's a lot of evidence now to deal with.

Not sure we agree. I said "in the first place"...you said "not longer relevant"....which means you think he was relevant at some point prior to now.

NP. He reported information that has been fully corroborated by the published testimonies of multiple people, as well as the published transcript of the 25 July call.

What's your issue?

It wasn't fully corroborated. For example, the WB complaint alleged that the Ukrainians knew the funds were withheld in early August. Ambassador Taylor testified under oath that the Ukrainians did not know until August 29.

The whistleblower did everything the way he was supposed to.
He had concerns and made a report of his concerns as he was supposed to.
That led to the investigation and hearings.
Apparently some people’s testimony is changing as their memories are being refreshed!
Oh yeah now I remember that quid pro quo!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Republicans so clueless about whistleblowers? If I work at a hospital and see evidence of massive Medicare fraud and turn it in as a whistleblower, once the authorities decide to investigate I am no longer relevant. The evidence is all that matters.

Bingo! Key word is you have to actually SEE evidence.
Thank you.

I just read the SEC. 701 Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 linked on an earlier page and there was no requirement to have SEEN evidence to be entitled to the protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act.

The protections, such as they are, come into play for anyone in the Intelligence Community making a complaint to Congress. NOWHERE does it state that the whistleblower has to to have first hand evidence or any wrongdoing to state concerns.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ272/html/PLAW-105publ272.htm

The whistleblower did everything according to procedure listed above.

c'mon PP, you can't expect Trumpsters to understand laws and rules. Trump doesn't. They are only following his lead as cult followers do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not sure we agree. I said "in the first place"...you said "not longer relevant"....which means you think he was relevant at some point prior to now.

Exactly.

The whistleblower had concerns.
He did what he was supposed to do.
He reported his concerns to the correct authority.

That was the point where the whistleblower was relevant.

Now that the process has moved forward and there are multiple (eyewitness) testimonies, the whistleblower part of this process is no longer relevant.

You are correct, thank you!

How can I be correct about something I did not say?

You are correct that the whistleblower was relevant at one point.

Now that there is multiple eye witness testimony the whistleblower is no longer relevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Zero firsthand evidence. How is that a whistleblower???

The whistleblower did everything right.
No requirement to have firsthand evidence to report concerns.
He reported concerns to the CIA General Counsel (Courtney Elwood), as he was supposed to.
CIA General Counsel found report credible and passed it on to Acting Director of National Intelligence Maguire as she was supposed to.

Maguire was supposed to pass the information on to Congress but didn't.

The whistleblower is no longer relevant.

Except for meet with Schiff a month earlier

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Zero firsthand evidence. How is that a whistleblower???

Good, so there's no need to out him or make his life miserable.

Good thing so many people are coming forward now to share their firsthand knowledge of Trump's abuse of office.

So, there was no need for a "whistleblower" in the first place, if there was all of this firsthand knowledge.

Good! We agree!

whistleblower is not longer relevant. He did what he was supposed to do - report concerns.
He reported to the right place, as outlined above.

Glad you agree there's a lot of evidence now to deal with.

Not sure we agree. I said "in the first place"...you said "not longer relevant"....which means you think he was relevant at some point prior to now.

NP. He reported information that has been fully corroborated by the published testimonies of multiple people, as well as the published transcript of the 25 July call.

What's your issue?

It wasn't fully corroborated. For example, the WB complaint alleged that the Ukrainians knew the funds were withheld in early August. Ambassador Taylor testified under oath that the Ukrainians did not know until August 29.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not sure we agree. I said "in the first place"...you said "not longer relevant"....which means you think he was relevant at some point prior to now.

Exactly.

The whistleblower had concerns.
He did what he was supposed to do.
He reported his concerns to the correct authority.

That was the point where the whistleblower was relevant.

Now that the process has moved forward and there are multiple (eyewitness) testimonies, the whistleblower part of this process is no longer relevant.

You are correct, thank you!

How can I be correct about something I did not say?

Anonymous wrote:

Not sure we agree. I said "in the first place"...you said "not longer relevant"....which means you think he was relevant at some point prior to now.

Exactly.

The whistleblower had concerns.
He did what he was supposed to do.
He reported his concerns to the correct authority.

That was the point where the whistleblower was relevant.

Now that the process has moved forward and there are multiple (eyewitness) testimonies, the whistleblower part of this process is no longer relevant.

You are correct, thank you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Zero firsthand evidence. How is that a whistleblower???

Good, so there's no need to out him or make his life miserable.

Good thing so many people are coming forward now to share their firsthand knowledge of Trump's abuse of office.

So, there was no need for a "whistleblower" in the first place, if there was all of this firsthand knowledge.

Good! We agree!

whistleblower is not longer relevant. He did what he was supposed to do - report concerns.
He reported to the right place, as outlined above.

Glad you agree there's a lot of evidence now to deal with.

Not sure we agree. I said "in the first place"...you said "not longer relevant"....which means you think he was relevant at some point prior to now.

NP. He reported information that has been fully corroborated by the published testimonies of multiple people, as well as the published transcript of the 25 July call.

What's your issue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Zero firsthand evidence. How is that a whistleblower???

Good, so there's no need to out him or make his life miserable.

Good thing so many people are coming forward now to share their firsthand knowledge of Trump's abuse of office.

So, there was no need for a "whistleblower" in the first place, if there was all of this firsthand knowledge.

Good! We agree!

whistleblower is not longer relevant. He did what he was supposed to do - report concerns.
He reported to the right place, as outlined above.

Glad you agree there's a lot of evidence now to deal with.

Not sure we agree. I said "in the first place"...you said "not longer relevant"....which means you think he was relevant at some point prior to now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Zero firsthand evidence. How is that a whistleblower???

Good, so there's no need to out him or make his life miserable.

Good thing so many people are coming forward now to share their firsthand knowledge of Trump's abuse of office.

So, there was no need for a "whistleblower" in the first place, if there was all of this firsthand knowledge.

Good! We agree!

whistleblower is not longer relevant. He did what he was supposed to do - report concerns.
He reported to the right place, as outlined above.

Glad you agree there's a lot of evidence now to deal with.

Anonymous wrote:
Zero firsthand evidence. How is that a whistleblower???

The whistleblower did everything right.
No requirement to have firsthand evidence to report concerns.
He reported concerns to the CIA General Counsel (Courtney Elwood), as he was supposed to.
CIA General Counsel found report credible and passed it on to Acting Director of National Intelligence Maguire as she was supposed to.

Maguire was supposed to pass the information on to Congress but didn't.

The whistleblower is no longer relevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Republicans so clueless about whistleblowers? If I work at a hospital and see evidence of massive Medicare fraud and turn it in as a whistleblower, once the authorities decide to investigate I am no longer relevant. The evidence is all that matters.

Bingo! Key word is you have to actually SEE evidence.
Thank you.

I just read the SEC. 701 Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 linked on an earlier page and there was no requirement to have SEEN evidence to be entitled to the protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act.

The protections, such as they are, come into play for anyone in the Intelligence Community making a complaint to Congress. NOWHERE does it state that the whistleblower has to to have first hand evidence or any wrongdoing to state concerns.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ272/html/PLAW-105publ272.htm

The whistleblower did everything according to procedure listed above.

Anonymous wrote:
You have to actually have firsthand evidence
to be a real whistleblower.

Not quite a haiku and not a valid argument, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Zero firsthand evidence. How is that a whistleblower???

Good, so there's no need to out him or make his life miserable.

Good thing so many people are coming forward now to share their firsthand knowledge of Trump's abuse of office.

So, there was no need for a "whistleblower" in the first place, if there was all of this firsthand knowledge.