Anonymous wrote:Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

The whistleblower reported his concerns to the proper channels.
That act made him a whistleblower.
There's no requirement to have first hand evidence to report your concerns.


Here's the analogy from 2nd grade:

Little Donny is writing vulgar words in the boys bathroom with permanent marker.
6 kids see him do it and the are talking about what little Donny did.

Jimmy, the 6th grade patrol, hears about it from the other kids. He didn't see Donny do anything but he believes that the 6 kids talking about it are quite credible. He does what he is supposed to do and tells the PE teacher (patrol supervisor) about his concerns.

PE teacher investigates, finds naughty words written, and interviews the 6 people Jimmy said were talking about it. Each one of them says the same thing -- that they saw Donny writing the naughty words.

Jimmy, the 6th grader, wasn't a direct observer of misbehavior. But he heard enough to raise his concerns with the authority in charge. That person carries out the interviews and investigation.

A 'whistleblower" *can* have direct knowledge of misbehavior, but that isn't a requirement. They aren't filing a criminal complaint. They are alerting authorities to the possibility of misbehavior or in Trump's case, misuse of office.

Anonymous wrote:There should be a ton of lawsuits lined up for this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumpkins-thought-this-man-was-the-whistleblower-they-were-wrong

And more important, I hope he isn't harmed.

Now you know how every man falsely accused of rape feels.

Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

There should be a ton of lawsuits lined up for this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumpkins-thought-this-man-was-the-whistleblower-they-were-wrong

And more important, I hope he isn't harmed.

Devin Nunes two years ago:

“Just two years ago, for example, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chaired the House Intelligence Committee that was investigating Russian election interference in the 2016 election. At a press conference in March 2017 announcing that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had agreed to testify, Nunes indicated that those who came forward with information for the investigation would be protected no matter what.

“We don't talk about sources at this committee,” said Nunes. “We want more people to come forward. The good thing is that we have continued to have people come forward, voluntarily, to this committee and we want to continue that and I will tell you that that will not happen if we tell you who our sources are and people that come to the committee.”

Nunes also encouraged whistleblowers to come forward “whether it's top secret or not. Or anyone who has read their name in any press article, they're welcome to come forward and be interviewed.”

And before the Russia investigation, Nunes lamented that whistleblower protections weren’t strong enough to ward off intimidation, which made officials worried that would-be whistleblowers would follow the path of Edward Snowden—the former government contractor who in 2013 leaked to the public a trove of data exposing government surveillance—rather than route their concerns through the congressional committees.

“There is a systemic problem with the whistle-blower process,” Nunes told Bloomberg’s Eli Lake. “There is no easy way for them to come forward that doesn't jeopardize their careers, across the whole defense and intelligence community enterprise.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/devin-nunes-once-praised-anonymous-whistleblowers-now-he-wants-trumps-exposed

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

With Schiff's staff, where they were told what the Whistleblower process was and who to contact. Again, does this negate the story that Rudy, Mulvaney and Trump have all admitted to and that documents, phone calls, text messages and the testimony of more than 10 people support? You keep bringing up these deflecting Fox points that are irrelevant to the core story, that the President of the United States extorted another foreign leader who was under the gun barrel of the Russians using Congressionally appropriated funds for personal gain.

Why?

How was this extortion? Extortion is obtaining something by force or threat. I don't think asking for a favor is extortion.

Asking for a favor and making $400M in military aid contingent on that favor is extortion.

Then was what Biden did, extortion also?

No, because what Biden did was in agreement with the US, all our allies, the World Bank and the IMF. That was policy. This was personal and political.

Ok if that’s what the fake news media wants you to believe. Sure.

I actually can’t tell if this is sarcasm or sad, sad trolling.

If you can't, then I guess it's neither.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

With Schiff's staff, where they were told what the Whistleblower process was and who to contact. Again, does this negate the story that Rudy, Mulvaney and Trump have all admitted to and that documents, phone calls, text messages and the testimony of more than 10 people support? You keep bringing up these deflecting Fox points that are irrelevant to the core story, that the President of the United States extorted another foreign leader who was under the gun barrel of the Russians using Congressionally appropriated funds for personal gain.

Why?

How was this extortion? Extortion is obtaining something by force or threat. I don't think asking for a favor is extortion.

Asking for a favor and making $400M in military aid contingent on that favor is extortion.

Then was what Biden did, extortion also?

No, because what Biden did was in agreement with the US, all our allies, the World Bank and the IMF. That was policy. This was personal and political.

Ok if that’s what the fake news media wants you to believe. Sure.

I actually can’t tell if this is sarcasm or sad, sad trolling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

With Schiff's staff, where they were told what the Whistleblower process was and who to contact. Again, does this negate the story that Rudy, Mulvaney and Trump have all admitted to and that documents, phone calls, text messages and the testimony of more than 10 people support? You keep bringing up these deflecting Fox points that are irrelevant to the core story, that the President of the United States extorted another foreign leader who was under the gun barrel of the Russians using Congressionally appropriated funds for personal gain.

Why?

How was this extortion? Extortion is obtaining something by force or threat. I don't think asking for a favor is extortion.

Asking for a favor and making $400M in military aid contingent on that favor is extortion.

Then was what Biden did, extortion also?

No, because what Biden did was in agreement with the US, all our allies, the World Bank and the IMF. That was policy. This was personal and political.

Ok if that’s what the fake news media wants you to believe. Sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

With Schiff's staff, where they were told what the Whistleblower process was and who to contact. Again, does this negate the story that Rudy, Mulvaney and Trump have all admitted to and that documents, phone calls, text messages and the testimony of more than 10 people support? You keep bringing up these deflecting Fox points that are irrelevant to the core story, that the President of the United States extorted another foreign leader who was under the gun barrel of the Russians using Congressionally appropriated funds for personal gain.

Why?

How was this extortion? Extortion is obtaining something by force or threat. I don't think asking for a favor is extortion.

Asking for a favor and making $400M in military aid contingent on that favor is extortion.

Then was what Biden did, extortion also?

No, because what Biden did was in agreement with the US, all our allies, the World Bank and the IMF. That was policy. This was personal and political.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

With Schiff's staff, where they were told what the Whistleblower process was and who to contact. Again, does this negate the story that Rudy, Mulvaney and Trump have all admitted to and that documents, phone calls, text messages and the testimony of more than 10 people support? You keep bringing up these deflecting Fox points that are irrelevant to the core story, that the President of the United States extorted another foreign leader who was under the gun barrel of the Russians using Congressionally appropriated funds for personal gain.

Why?

How was this extortion? Extortion is obtaining something by force or threat. I don't think asking for a favor is extortion.

Asking for a favor and making $400M in military aid contingent on that favor is extortion.

Then was what Biden did, extortion also?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

With Schiff's staff, where they were told what the Whistleblower process was and who to contact. Again, does this negate the story that Rudy, Mulvaney and Trump have all admitted to and that documents, phone calls, text messages and the testimony of more than 10 people support? You keep bringing up these deflecting Fox points that are irrelevant to the core story, that the President of the United States extorted another foreign leader who was under the gun barrel of the Russians using Congressionally appropriated funds for personal gain.

Why?

How was this extortion? Extortion is obtaining something by force or threat. I don't think asking for a favor is extortion.

Asking for a favor and making $400M in military aid contingent on that favor is extortion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

With Schiff's staff, where they were told what the Whistleblower process was and who to contact. Again, does this negate the story that Rudy, Mulvaney and Trump have all admitted to and that documents, phone calls, text messages and the testimony of more than 10 people support? You keep bringing up these deflecting Fox points that are irrelevant to the core story, that the President of the United States extorted another foreign leader who was under the gun barrel of the Russians using Congressionally appropriated funds for personal gain.

Why?

How was this extortion? Extortion is obtaining something by force or threat. I don't think asking for a favor is extortion.

Anonymous wrote:

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

With Schiff's staff, where they were told what the Whistleblower process was and who to contact. Again, does this negate the story that Rudy, Mulvaney and Trump have all admitted to and that documents, phone calls, text messages and the testimony of more than 10 people support? You keep bringing up these deflecting Fox points that are irrelevant to the core story, that the President of the United States extorted another foreign leader who was under the gun barrel of the Russians using Congressionally appropriated funds for personal gain.

Why?

Anonymous wrote:

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

The whistleblower made a report of his concerns to the correct person.
As a result we are now having impeachment hearings.

At these hearings multiple people are testifying the same basic facts that they directly observed.

It is good to get to the bottom of this, through a Constitutional process.

The American public needs to know: is the President fit to serve?
Did he abuse the power of his office for personal gain?

Public hearings will help us learn the extent of this abuse of office.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans nor Independents think a President is above the law .

All loyal Americans support our Constitution.

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.

Keep up, testimony supports the Whistleblower complaint, including this detail.

Question, does it matter whether the Ukrainians knew of the shakedown in May or August? No, there was a shakedown, period. Why get hung up on this little detail in an attempt to excuse the whole criminal enterprise?