Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Making themselves proud, there, I see.

Really? They can pick apart the pieces but not the phone call memo, which the whistleblower saw first hand and which we the people have also seen first hand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Making themselves proud, there, I see.

Really? They can pick apart the pieces but not the phone call memo, which the whistleblower saw first hand and which we the people have also seen first hand.

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whistle blower is not a whistleblower. Everybody good on that or does someone need an explanation?
And because he/she isn’t a whistleblower, it’s time to release the name.

The person is still a whistleblower in need of protection against retaliation. That the WH already knows their name because they trusted the CIA GC makes it all the more important that they are protected.

Because those mafioso thugs could have him/her KILLED.

Do you people HEAR yourselves?

Rudy Giuliani told Ben Schreckinger at Politico today that he believes he's "the real whistleblower" of the Trump-Ukraine saga and said, "If I get killed now ... you won't get the rest of the story."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of Trump’s unqualified RWNJ court appointees is wrapped up in the whistleblower scandal:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/steven-menashi-trump-judicial-nominee-ukraine-whistleblower-impeachment_n_5d8e4d8ae4b0019647a8518a?yr3

Nominee rather than appointee, I think.

On Wednesday, the White House released a transcript of Trump's July call with Zelensky, showing Trump sought a review of former Vice President Joe Biden's efforts to have Ukraine's former top prosecutor fired.

Anonymous wrote:One of Trump’s unqualified RWNJ court appointees is wrapped up in the whistleblower scandal:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/steven-menashi-trump-judicial-nominee-ukraine-whistleblower-impeachment_n_5d8e4d8ae4b0019647a8518a?yr3

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whistle blower is not a whistleblower. Everybody good on that or does someone need an explanation?
And because he/she isn’t a whistleblower, it’s time to release the name.

The person is still a whistleblower in need of protection against retaliation. That the WH already knows their name because they trusted the CIA GC makes it all the more important that they are protected.

Because those mafioso thugs could have him/her KILLED.

Do you people HEAR yourselves?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whistle blower is not a whistleblower. Everybody good on that or does someone need an explanation?
And because he/she isn’t a whistleblower, it’s time to release the name.

The person is still a whistleblower in need of protection against retaliation. That the WH already knows their name because they trusted the CIA GC makes it all the more important that they are protected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff had taken the time to look at the criteria for complaints, they would understand why this was not passed on.
This complaint should not have ever made it to Congress based on these criteria.

They know this already. That's why they haven't made a vote. All of this is political posturing for 20/20 in coordination with the media.

No, it's because you haven't bothered to read 9 pages. Two of those are an addendum, so you only need to read 7 pages.

SMH

Actually, I have. Carefully written by a lawyer.

Then how can you claim that it doesn't meet the criteria for a whistleblower complaint? It does.

Besides having the ICIG say so, we can read it ourselves and see that it does.

The informant did not file himself. That was my first suspicious moment. Something so devastating and the person doesn’t report it? Then it turned into ‘a pattern of behavior reported by many’. And that was the tell.

Informant? A whistleblower isn't a spy.

You sound very confused.

+1. PP, here’s Chris Wallace: "...it is a serious allegation... the whistleblower lays out a blueprint for talking to various officials in the White House... and to dismiss this... seems to me to be an effort by the president's defenders to try to make nothing out of something and there is something here."

Ever notice how y'all always refer to the same papers and people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incorrect information in the whistleblower's complaint....

The complaint stated that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike" -- a request that does not appear in the declassified transcript of the call released by the Trump administration on Tuesday. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike, but did not demand the server.

And according to the whistleblower complaint, by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to "contain the damage" from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine.

But a July 19 text message conversation from Volker to Giuliani, provided to Fox News on Thursday, showed that Volker had in fact encouraged Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine -- even sending Giuliani a message reading, "connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky."

Additionally, the complaint said Trump "suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep" his current prosecutor general, a claim not supported by the transcript.

CBS News reported late Thursday that the whistleblower complaint further inaccurately claimed that a State Department official was on the call with Zelensky.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-whistleblowers-sources-citing-apparent-white-house-leak-problem

Let's understand where the whole 'crowdstrike" thing came from

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1177635600389857284

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The stuff in the whistleblower report was substantiated before it was brought out. Trump is done.

This is very easy for anyone to understand.

Also it is very easy for anyone to grasp that he threatened the life of the whistleblower and people who talked to him. He used the same kind of language to inflame his base before the El Paso shooting too.

Releasing the summary of the call was a huge mistake. Why anyone thought it was a "perfect call" no one can say. Only delusional.

I want you to be right but you seem overly confident to me. How many times since the campaign have we thought “that’s it he’s toast!”??

The facts are right, the only question is if the American public understands, simply and plainly, these actions, why they are wrong, illegal and un-American, and speak out to their Senators to hold the President and his Administration accountable.

Only you ‘elite feds’ get it?

huh?

Exactly!! Elite fed?! Biggest oxymoron ever. Some of the post here are comically bewildering.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



The informant did not file himself. That was my first suspicious moment. Something so devastating and the person doesn’t report it? Then it turned into ‘a pattern of behavior reported by many’. And that was the tell.

Except they filed twice. Only when the first filing was turned over to the White House did the complaint then go through the whistleblower protocol.

There was no initial filing from any individual who directly heard the phone call.