Full Release of Whistle Blower and IG letter.

All I can say is there is a lot of hearsay and second hand knowledge going on here.. If the individuals don't step up and support this its a huge fail for the Dems

intelligence.house.gov...

intelligence.house.gov...

a reply to: Stealu1two
ahahahahaha
wait wait
ahahahaha

pelosi started impeachment over this?
ahaahahahaha

ahahahahah


hey wanna know what is just as credible?
3 people with insider knowledge told me santa will start delivering presents on or around dec 24th

ahahahahaha

well done dems
you tracked the crap right into the house
now the carpet and your shoes are both ruined

a reply to: shooterbrody Unless these people step up under oath in front of the American people this is going to be a huge loss for Dems.. this is not ending well for them. Now if these individuals do step up and all is laid out then I will support impeachment but if we are going by second hand knowledge then.. wow..

originally posted by: Stealu1two
a reply to: shooterbrody Unless these people step up under oath in front of the American people this is going to be a huge loss for Dems.. this is not ending well for them. Now if these individuals do step up and all is laid out then I will support impeachment but if we are going by second hand knowledge then.. wow..

this plus the admission by the ig that the person filing this had political motivation to do so is the end

no more of this type of crap

THE HOUSE DEMS MOVED ON IMPEACHMENT OVER THIS
it is all hearsay

let that sink in

LOL. Bullet point number two:

I was not a direct witness to most of the events

All I can say is there is a lot of hearsay and second hand knowledge going on here.. If the individuals don't step up and support this its a huge fail for the Dems

I wrote a thread the other day in which I basically said this whole thing is just so stupid I honestly struggle to believe Trump could be so stupid and while I stand by that claim I am in this kind of frame of mind where there is so much spin its hard to know what to believe.

Thats part of the problem though, the dems spin this one way, Trump spins it another and you have the press just trying to spin it in whatever way will get them the most views. Makes it kind of difficult to understand what's truly happening, makes it difficult to get to the facts. Even when you look at the transcript, you look at it and yeah its might not look good but it doesn't scream to me that all Trump has committed a high crime, that however could just be down to me kind of falling out of keeping up with American politics over the last year (sorry its just too toxic).

With all that said I think honestly the best and safest position to take is to just wait and see what comes out of any investigation and go with that. When it came to the whole Russian thing that ended up being my position, lets wait and see what the investigation concludes and I think I will be the same on this. There is just too much spin and opinion kicking about to actually get to the facts so am going to wait and see whatever the investigation says.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
LOL. Bullet point number two:

I was not a direct witness to most of the events

yeah
that is not going to get spun away
nor is the fact that the ig had to admit political bias

this whole event is garbage
a sitting potus should not have to deal with these shenanigans in the course of conducting diplomacy

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
it is hard not to believe someone who has documented political bias spreading rumors about a sitting president?

really

wow

I don't think this was the smartest or most ethical play. But after 2016, I'm having a hard time taking serious the left's cry of foul on this. They paid for foreign intel, and by proxy or not, they used that to start a domestic investigation full well knowing it was unverified campaign oppo-research. All that was defended through the proceeding time.

That said, I still think this is all orchestrated to keep people in their polar camps. Just enough fodder for both sides to stay convicted... It will pass through congress but not senate, and this will become yestermonths news the next time a "bombshell" comes out about either side.

a reply to: FauxMulder

I was not a direct witness to most of the events

That tells me that the whistle blower is a high ranking member of the intelligence community, whom intel agents report to. I suspect it's Dan Coats.

I might remind all of you folks who think 2nd hand knowledge is so inadequate, the President of the United States is brief everyday by people who have 2nd hand knowledge of the information they're presenting, and POTUS makes his all his policy and strategic decisions based on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand knowledge.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't think this was the smartest or most ethical play.

imo this is off the charts
to use this as any kind of justification for impeachment is unforgivable

all those pushing this garbage need to be held accountable
this is the worst kind of trash

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I might remind all of you folks who think 2nd hand knowledge is so inadequate, the President of the United States is brief everyday by people who have 2nd hand knowledge of the information they're presenting, and POTUS makes his all his policy and strategic decisions based on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand knowledge.

and I will remind you 2nd hand knowledge is inadmissible in a court of law for a reason

hear·say /ˈhirˌsā/
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

that is in no way "high crimes or misdemeanors" as it was alleged by the house dems

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That tells me that the whistle blower is a high ranking member of the intelligence community, whom intel agents report to. I suspect it's Dan Coats.

It has already been reported that he is not a member of the IC.

I'm reading over the complaint now... my thanks to the OP for posting it. So far (this is my second reading) I have seen nothing specific, just a rehash of recent known events, spun as told by unidentified "White House officials." Maybe I missed something the first time, but if not I call BS.

TheRedneck

My question is why did it take someone with "second hand" knowledge? Why didn't anyone with first hand knowledge make a complaint?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FauxMulder

I was not a direct witness to most of the events

That tells me that the whistle blower is a high ranking member of the intelligence community, whom intel agents report to. I suspect it's Dan Coats.

I might remind all of you folks who think 2nd hand knowledge is so inadequate, the President of the United States is brief everyday by people who have 2nd hand knowledge of the information they're presenting, and POTUS makes his all his policy and strategic decisions based on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand knowledge.

1. If your assumption is true, then someone has first hand knowledge. Or the "high ranking member" was lied to by a subordinate. I'd suspect that, based ont he transcripts, the latter is true. If it is not, then the actual witness should speak. Or the matter is dropped.

2. Second hand knowledge is what is known as a "rumor", and it is not subject to any whistleblower status.

3. The deflection to your perception of how the POTUS makes decisions is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and is instead a justification for not following the law on this matter. i.e., the whistleblower statute.

so this is like the second part of the Mueller "Dossier" all rumor and innuendo.

nothing concrete


we "think" he did something bad but deleted the evidence to the point we cannot find it so he MUST be guilty, becuse the evidence of guilt just is not there so it must be so.

or something.

right?

(who knew benadryl helps one understand the left.)

a reply to: TheRedneck

It has already been reported that he is not a member of the IC.

That's not true.

The whistleblower works in the US intelligence community (which includes the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and a whole bunch of other agencies). Per the Post, he or she “once worked on the staff of the White House National Security Council, which frequently borrows intelligence community personnel.”

www.vox.com...

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't think this was the smartest or most ethical play.

imo this is off the charts
to use this as any kind of justification for impeachment is unforgivable

all those pushing this garbage need to be held accountable
this is the worst kind of trash

I don't think impeachment should be on the table, and I certainly think it's a dumb move on the left's part. They know it won't pass the senate, so they're wasting their time while they should be doing the work of the people. So their justification is likely political, which is still counterproductive because any votes they'd gain from this act they'd lose a comparable amount.

Now to Trump. Should he start a domestic investigation based off of this, IMO, he's playing by similar tactics as were used against him, so his victim card gets taken from him in my book.

If he just uses it to bury Biden's campaign, it was a risky move that paid off, and while I don't morally agree with it... It's not the worse thing to happen as of recent years.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

2. Second hand knowledge is what is known as a "rumor", and it is not subject to any whistleblower status.

It was reported (on live TV) that the report named sources, and the Acting DNI Intelligence Community Inspector General interviewed each and everyone of them before declaring the report "credible and urgent".

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I might remind all of you folks who think 2nd hand knowledge is so inadequate

Does hearsay hold up in a court of law?

President of the United States is brief everyday by people who have 2nd hand knowledge of the information they're presenting

Yes, but it isn't the basis for impeachment. I seem to remember some IC people leaving things out of the PDB so that Trump would not see the items and be in the dark about things.