Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linda Tripp managed to get Bill Clinton impeached on heresay that was later proven with evidence.

Funny the GOP doesn't think that standard should hold now.

Clinton lied. That’s what got him impeached. Tell me, if the whistle blower’s statement is so air tight, why did Schiff do his parody of a version?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

Even better, the transcript of the call showed no wrongdoing so they had to scramble and create the extortion narrative. Put two and two together, they say. The funny part is, Biden bragged on tape about him withholding 1 billion in aid unless the prosecutor was fired, and the narrative there is “well, the prosecutor was corrupt”. Let’s say that the firing had nothing to do with Hunter Biden - what Biden did is still extortion.

It showed no wrongdoing to they shelved it on a super secret NSC server.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here come all the leaks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.?The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the day before had relieved “great pressure” on him.

Ironic that the conversation was put in the secret server because of this conversation.

The man is a traitor. Bill Weld is correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I messed up the placement of my response to the above post:

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW hearsay.

Read the article.

Smh. This is completely outrageous and the crafters are having a good laugh. Laugh now, savor it now.

I could be wrong.

This indicates that this is a political hit job. The timing is everything.

The complaint isn’t hearsay and it is true. It is being investigated and validated properly but Trump and Giuliani and the White House have admitted all the major allegations. So the Whistleblower rules change had no effect on this.

It is hearsay. Changing the rules after complaint was filed--which is the way it appears-- is not the way things are usually done. This was orchestrated and staged by way more than one guy/girl and a lawyer.

I contend they were done in a coordinated fashion. The complaint is now said to be a ‘conglomeration of statements and events over time, by multiple people’, which would never have been possible under the old whistleblower rules. Change the rules, create a ‘situation’ and there you go!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

Even better, the transcript of the call showed no wrongdoing so they had to scramble and create the extortion narrative. Put two and two together, they say. The funny part is, Biden bragged on tape about him withholding 1 billion in aid unless the prosecutor was fired, and the narrative there is “well, the prosecutor was corrupt”. Let’s say that the firing had nothing to do with Hunter Biden - what Biden did is still extortion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

Even better, the transcript of the call showed no wrongdoing so they had to scramble and create the extortion narrative. Put two and two together, they say. The funny part is, Biden bragged on tape about him withholding 1 billion in aid unless the prosecutor was fired, and the narrative there is “well, the prosecutor was corrupt”. Let’s say that the firing had nothing to do with Hunter Biden - what Biden did is still extortion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

Even better, the transcript of the call showed no wrongdoing so they had to scramble and create the extortion narrative. Put two and two together, they say. The funny part is, Biden bragged on tape about him withholding 1 billion in aid unless the prosecutor was fired, and the narrative there is “well, the prosecutor was corrupt”. Let’s say that the firing had nothing to do with Hunter Biden - what Biden did is still extortion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jeff should delete all argument about a change in whistle blower rules. It brings nothing to the discussion.

Why? Does it make you nervous? Why do you care otherwise? Many people think it's completely relevant.

It clutters up the thread when I scroll through, and I honestly don't understand the point people on both sides are trying to make. We have a President who has apparently said such egregious things to Putin and MBS that the records weren't given out to the usual folks, and Trump released the *comparatively safe* Ukraine convo.

Nobody cares how/when the whistle-blowing rules changed, since the focus will be on getting to the bottom of the Ukraine thing, and perhaps getting those sensitive transcripts to the Intelligence committee.

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I messed up the placement of my response to the above post:

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW hearsay.

Read the article.

Smh. This is completely outrageous and the crafters are having a good laugh. Laugh now, savor it now.

I could be wrong.

This indicates that this is a political hit job. The timing is everything.

The complaint isn’t hearsay and it is true. It is being investigated and validated properly but Trump and Giuliani and the White House have admitted all the major allegations. So the Whistleblower rules change had no effect on this.

The narrative is that Trump and Giuliani admitted the allegations and that what Trump and Giuliani did was treasonous. That’s not quite true (like, not true). But consider that the changes were made solid in August 2019, which, coincidentally, is when Schiff started tweeting about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Jeff should delete all argument about a change in whistle blower rules. It brings nothing I like to the discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I messed up the placement of my response to the above post:

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW hearsay.

Read the article.

Smh. This is completely outrageous and the crafters are having a good laugh. Laugh now, savor it now.

I could be wrong.

This indicates that this is a political hit job. The timing is everything.

The complaint isn’t hearsay and it is true. It is being investigated and validated properly but Trump and Giuliani and the White House have admitted all the major allegations. So the Whistleblower rules change had no effect on this.

It is hearsay. Changing the rules after complaint was filed--which is the way it appears-- is not the way things are usually done. This was orchestrated and staged by way more than one guy/girl and a lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I messed up the placement of my response to the above post:

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW hearsay.

Read the article.

Smh. This is completely outrageous and the crafters are having a good laugh. Laugh now, savor it now.

I could be wrong.

This indicates that this is a political hit job. The timing is everything.

The complaint isn’t hearsay and it is true. It is being investigated and validated properly but Trump and Giuliani and the White House have admitted all the major allegations. So the Whistleblower rules change had no effect on this.