GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

---

So the same FBI that missed this error 6 times should be trusted to investigate him again?

Let me ask this question, does his dick thing just disqualify him from the Supreme Court or should he have also lost his job as an appellate judge? Both are lifetime appointments.

The Congress is free to investigate and interview these so called witness. Let them ask the questions.

They won't because the lie is more important than the truth.

---

So the same FBI that missed this error 6 times should be trusted to investigate him again?

The FBI did not miss anything in the first six investigations. They asked his acquaintances and associates and they gave answers that were no cause for concern. If no one came forward, there was no way to know. And yes, the fact that no one came forward when Brett Kvanaugh was nominated to be an appellate judge calls into question their coming forward when he was nominated to SCOTUS. But that doesn't mean an allegation should be ignored.

Let me ask this question, does his dick thing just disqualify him from the Supreme Court or should he have also lost his job as an appellate judge?

No. Poor judgment while intoxicated 30 years ago is not a disqualifier to me. Others-particularly sexual assault victims- would see it differently and I respect their perspective.

If the Blasey Ford story was true, that is something different. But I don't see how anyone could conclude the Blasey Ford story was true with enough certainty to make that call. What concerns me the most and what I would consider a disqualifier is whether Justice Kavanaugh lied in his testimony. At the very least he seemed to minimize the extent of his binge drinking.

The Congress is free to investigate and interview these so called witness. Let them ask the questions.


They won't because the lie is more important than the truth.

Not sure that is entirely true. First, the GOP in the Senate controls the procedures. Second, the way it should work is that the FBI interviews the potential witnesses to see if there is anything to it; if there is the Senators get involved. Third, there was no time. (Which was Dianne Feinstien's fault).

I said at the time the Justice Kavanaugh should be confirmed and none of this has changed my mind. If someone proves he lied in his testimony, he should be impeached. No one has proven that yet.

But pretending that the FBI investigation resolved all these issues is just a joke.

Doc Holliday said:

---

IT'S OFFICIAL: COURT DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED TO PROTECT HUNTER BIDEN


This corroborates what Joe Biden has said, already. Just another piece of the puzzle.

---

Yes, because the guy who was fired after just about every body in the world complained he was part of the corruption problem--that is a guy whose words we should accept at face value.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

---

Who said the FBI wasn't allowed to talk to witnesses?

---

I'm sure it was not phrased that way, but the result was the same. Lots of potential witnesses called in that the FBI just did not contact. Why do think that happened?

Doc Holliday said:

---

IT'S OFFICIAL: COURT DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED TO PROTECT HUNTER BIDEN


This corroborates what Joe Biden has said, already. Just another piece of the puzzle.

---

Proves he has a different opinion on why he was fired. Plenty of other Ukrainian folks have said he wasn't pursuing Burisma or anybody else.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

IT'S OFFICIAL: COURT DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED TO PROTECT HUNTER BIDEN


This corroborates what Joe Biden has said, already. Just another piece of the puzzle.

---

Proves he has a different opinion on why he was fired. Plenty of other Ukrainian folks have said he wasn't pursuing Burisma or anybody else.

---

Yeah... you might want to do some research on those Ukrainian folks who said that.

The former General Prosecutor of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko -- was previously convicted for embezzlement and abuse of office, and sentenced to four years in prison.

Lutsenko was only able to be appointment as General Prosecutor after the Ukraine amended legislation to allow the General Prosecutor to not have a law degree.

Lutsenko was appointed after Viktor Shokin was forced to resign due to his wide-ranging corruption investigation into a company (Burisma Holdings),.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

IT'S OFFICIAL: COURT DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED TO PROTECT HUNTER BIDEN


This corroborates what Joe Biden has said, already. Just another piece of the puzzle.

---

Proves he has a different opinion on why he was fired. Plenty of other Ukrainian folks have said he wasn't pursuing Burisma or anybody else.

---

Yeah... you might want to do some research on those Ukrainian folks who said that.

The former General Prosecutor of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko -- was previously convicted for embezzlement and abuse of office, and sentenced to four years in prison.

Lutsenko was only able to be appointment as General Prosecutor after the Ukraine amended legislation to allow the General Prosecutor to not have a law degree.

Lutsenko was appointed after Viktor Shokin was forced to resign due to his wide-ranging corruption investigation into a company (Burisma Holdings),.

---

I did do research. I posted part of it.

Lutsenko was as ineffective as Shokin. The guy before Lutsenko was the same.

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

"If you can't see the futility in what the FBI was doing I can't help you."

I see the futility in your evasion. Funny how your opinion of the FBI varies according to who they investigate ...

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

---

Especially a hearsay account of such call. There are more than a few lawyers in Congress, and even politicians understand that hearsay is worthless.

Personally, I still think it's just more Donkey Kabuki. An actual impeachment will go against voters' wishes, and will force a trial where Democrats would actually have to produce real evidence. Far more comfortable for the Democrats to continue endless hearings while hinting at terrible possibilities they cannot be forced to prove are true.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

---

Especially a hearsay account of such call. There are more than a few lawyers in Congress, and even politicians understand that hearsay is worthless.

Personally, I still think it's just more Donkey Kabuki. An actual impeachment will go against voters' wishes, and will force a trial where Democrats would actually have to produce real evidence. Far more comfortable for the Democrats to continue endless hearings while hinting at terrible possibilities they cannot be forced to prove are true.

---

THE SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF THE CALL CONFIRMED THE SUPPOSED "HERESAY."

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

---

Especially a hearsay account of such call. There are more than a few lawyers in Congress, and even politicians understand that hearsay is worthless.

Personally, I still think it's just more Donkey Kabuki. An actual impeachment will go against voters' wishes, and will force a trial where Democrats would actually have to produce real evidence. Far more comfortable for the Democrats to continue endless hearings while hinting at terrible possibilities they cannot be forced to prove are true.

---

THE SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF THE CALL CONFIRMED THE SUPPOSED "HERESAY."

---

No, it did not. Several contradictions were found, such as no actual quid pro quo, no threats, and one person alleged to have been on the call was not even in the building.

Seriously, do you not even bother to read the documents, Brooks?

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

---

Especially a hearsay account of such call. There are more than a few lawyers in Congress, and even politicians understand that hearsay is worthless.

Personally, I still think it's just more Donkey Kabuki. An actual impeachment will go against voters' wishes, and will force a trial where Democrats would actually have to produce real evidence. Far more comfortable for the Democrats to continue endless hearings while hinting at terrible possibilities they cannot be forced to prove are true.

---

James' sister told Fred that James said he robbed the 7-11 last night. The police are looking for the 7-11 robber. Do you think the police consider the tip from Fred "worthless" because it is hearsay?

Of course not. They can't get a conviction on it and maybe not even a warrant. But they can and should investigate. Because the hearsay evidence will often led to admissible evidence.

If the whistle blower had multiple people telling him that Trump was bargaining our tax money for political favors; asked for an investigation and didn't get one, he needed to file a complaint and the complaint needs to be looked at.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

---

Especially a hearsay account of such call. There are more than a few lawyers in Congress, and even politicians understand that hearsay is worthless.

Personally, I still think it's just more Donkey Kabuki. An actual impeachment will go against voters' wishes, and will force a trial where Democrats would actually have to produce real evidence. Far more comfortable for the Democrats to continue endless hearings while hinting at terrible possibilities they cannot be forced to prove are true.

---

THE SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF THE CALL CONFIRMED THE SUPPOSED "HERESAY."

---

No, it did not. Several contradictions were found, such as no actual quid pro quo, no threats, and one person alleged to have been on the call was not even in the building.

Seriously, do you not even bother to read the documents, Brooks?

---

I did! Did you?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

---

Especially a hearsay account of such call. There are more than a few lawyers in Congress, and even politicians understand that hearsay is worthless.

Personally, I still think it's just more Donkey Kabuki. An actual impeachment will go against voters' wishes, and will force a trial where Democrats would actually have to produce real evidence. Far more comfortable for the Democrats to continue endless hearings while hinting at terrible possibilities they cannot be forced to prove are true.

---

THE SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF THE CALL CONFIRMED THE SUPPOSED "HERESAY."

---

No, it did not. Several contradictions were found, such as no actual quid pro quo, no threats, and one person alleged to have been on the call was not even in the building.

Seriously, do you not even bother to read the documents, Brooks?

---

I did! Did you?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

---

Of course I did. Apparently, you failed to read most of my last post, too.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

IT'S OFFICIAL: COURT DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED TO PROTECT HUNTER BIDEN


This corroborates what Joe Biden has said, already. Just another piece of the puzzle.

---

Yes, because the guy who was fired after just about every body in the world complained he was part of the corruption problem--that is a guy whose words we should accept at face value.

---

Why not? Democrats still listen to Adam Schiff.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

---

Especially a hearsay account of such call. There are more than a few lawyers in Congress, and even politicians understand that hearsay is worthless.

Personally, I still think it's just more Donkey Kabuki. An actual impeachment will go against voters' wishes, and will force a trial where Democrats would actually have to produce real evidence. Far more comfortable for the Democrats to continue endless hearings while hinting at terrible possibilities they cannot be forced to prove are true.

---

THE SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF THE CALL CONFIRMED THE SUPPOSED "HERESAY."

---

There are 5 contradictions in it. This is a lie.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

---

Especially a hearsay account of such call. There are more than a few lawyers in Congress, and even politicians understand that hearsay is worthless.

Personally, I still think it's just more Donkey Kabuki. An actual impeachment will go against voters' wishes, and will force a trial where Democrats would actually have to produce real evidence. Far more comfortable for the Democrats to continue endless hearings while hinting at terrible possibilities they cannot be forced to prove are true.

---

THE SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF THE CALL CONFIRMED THE SUPPOSED "HERESAY."

---

No, it did not. Several contradictions were found, such as no actual quid pro quo, no threats, and one person alleged to have been on the call was not even in the building.

Seriously, do you not even bother to read the documents, Brooks?

---

I did! Did you?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

---

You're confused. You should read it...not read into it.

Huge difference.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

---

Who said the FBI wasn't allowed to talk to witnesses?

---

I'm sure it was not phrased that way, but the result was the same. Lots of potential witnesses called in that the FBI just did not contact. Why do think that happened?

---

My understanding is that Trump limited their ability, either partially or completely, to investigate new accusations. It's not clear that he limited their ability to interview witnesses in existing claims. The FBI summary gives the impression that they decided whom to interview. It also says they interviewed or tried to interview all witnesses with potential first-hand knowledge.

The FBI investigation was political in its origin and was affected by politics on both sides. The Senate was already investigating on its own. Democrats wanted to delay and fish for more claims, while Republicans wanted to do whatever it took to satisfy the undecided Senators. I think the FBI's work was designed to do enough to accomplish the latter goal without contributing too much to the former. Obviously that's not very satisfying to those who opposed Kavanaugh, but it's not necessarily wrong either. There were increasingly bizarre and implausible claims coming out, for example the gang rape story. At some point they had to stop entertaining unprovable allegations like Stier's if they were ever going to get to a vote.

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

Here is an interview with the former Ukrainian prosecutor mentioned in the whistleblower complaint. Listen to him acknowledge that he found no wrongdoing by the Bidens:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/sports/ex-ukraine-prosecutor-says-he-spoke-with-giuliani-maybe-10-times/vi-AAHWtCS

Does the head of Trump's shadow State Department, Rudi Guliani even have a security clearance, and if so, was it granted through the truncated process that allowed Jared to obtain his?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge.

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

Doc is losing his mind.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

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

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Implementing the policy of the US, the IMF, etc. Not what you think it is.

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge.

---

In making this ruling, the Third Circuit offered guidance on the meaning of "direct" and "independent" knowledge with respect to the public disclosure bar. "Direct" knowledge, it asserted, is first-hand knowledge, seen with the whistleblower's own eyes and obtained without any immediate outside influence. "Independent" knowledge, according to the panel, means "knowledge of the fraud that cannot be merely dependent on a public disclosure."

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bbfc3c40-b199-47b2-9384-859c14031365

---

You did not stay at a Holiday Inn express last night.

First, the article you link to is for Qui Tam actions which are not whistle blower complaints. A Qui Tam is a civil suit for damages based on fraud on the government.

A whistle blower complaint is a request for government action because some part of the government or a government actor is abusing the public trust.

Second, as one might expect the two concepts have entirely separate statutory schemes. The Qui Tam scheme is about how the party who identified the fraud can be compensated. The whistle blower protection act is about protecting the whistle blower from retaliation.

Third, the Qui Tam statute specifically requires the Qui Tam plaintiff to be the "original source" of the information demonstrating the fraud. If he is not that doesn't mean the government doesn't take action, it means the plaintiff doesn't get paid if the government wins.

Most importantly, as I cited above, the whistle blower statute does not have the "original source" language that the Qui Tam statute does. Being a good textualist, I am sure you will agree that the Courts should not be inserting words into statutes that Congress did not put there in the first place.

Fourth, if you want to travel further, there is a real reason fro the public disclosure bar in Qui Tam actions. Congress did not intend to create an army of gadflies looking to get rich by using public information to complain about drug prices paid by Medicaid. (as an example of a common Qui Tam action). The original source bar is used to limit claims to things the general public does not know about. That rationale would of course not bee needed for intelligence whistle blowers, because by definition they are dealing with things the general public does not know about.

Fifth, even the article you cited (which was 2014) noted a split in the circuits. The third Circuit, ( the one you relied on) later chopped back its ruling. Explanation is here:

A September 2018 Third Circuit decision in Pharamerica clarifies that the FCA's public disclosure bar is not triggered when a relator relies upon non-public information to make sense of publicly available information, where the public information standing alone could not have reasonably or plausibly supported an inference that the fraud was in fact occurring. Similarly, the D.C. Circuit has held that the public disclosure bar is not triggered where the relator "supplied the missing link between the public information and the alleged fraud" by "rel[ying] on nonpublic information to interpret each [publicly disclosed] contract," and where "[w]ithout [relator's] nonpublic sources . . . there was insufficient [public] information to conclude" that the defendant actually engaged in the alleged fraud. United States ex rel. Shea v. Cellco P'ship, 863 F.3d 923, 935 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sp_faq/public-disclosure-bar-false-claims-act/

So even Qui Tam actions do not require personal knowledge. Whistle Blower protection certainly does not require it and there is zero argument about whether that is correct.

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

You can do both. Obama would have prosecuted the leak and defended the whistleblower, would have been an interesting show. But the fact that you call him a leaker doesn't mean he's not also a whistleblower.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

He got that part wrong. So?

I've tried to explain to you before things like "weight of the evidence" and "credibility" but you are binary blind to nuance.

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.