It wasn't and the eleven page whistleblower complaint will serve as the document on which Trump's ultimate impeachment will rest.

A conspiratorial article in The Federalist falsely claiming that until recently, intelligence community whistleblowers were required to have "firsthand knowledge" of wrongdoing to file a complaint is being used by other conservative media outlets, Republican members of Congress, and the president himself in desperate attempts to discredit a whistleblower complaint that is at the heart of an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
Trump is currently facing an impeachment inquiry in the U.S. House of Representatives following the revelation that he pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The allegations against Trump stem from an anonymous whistleblower complaint submitted by a member of the intelligence community. The Trump administration attempted to prevent Congress from accessing the complaint, even though the law required it, but then relented and released the damning report.
Trump defenders in conservative media have pushed a number of misleading narratives about the complaint, and an article published on September 27 by Federalist co-founder Sean Davis is the latest flashpoint in right-wing attempts to spin the allegations in a favorable light to Trump.
In his article, Davis wrote that "between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings" and that said action "raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior" surrounding the complaint. Davis attempted to support his claim by citing forms available to the intelligence community to assist potential whistleblowers in filing complaints.
According to Davis, a form available in May contains language suggesting complainants must have firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing to file an "urgent concern" complaint -- the type of complaint filed by the Ukraine whistleblower -- but that the form was revised at some point to remove that language. (But according to a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, the likely explanation for the change was that the information in the previous form was inaccurate on the issue of firsthand knowledge and was therefore updated.)
To be clear, Davis' claim that there was a firsthand knowledge requirement for filing a complaint is false. It simply does not exist in the statute that lays out the requirements of a successful "urgent concern" report. The controlling statute is 50 U.S. Code 3033(k)(5)(G), which lays out the following requirements, none of which are firsthand knowledge:

Quote:

---

(G) In this paragraph, the term "urgent concern" means any of the following:
(i) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.
(ii) A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.
(iii) An action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B) of this section in response to an employee's reporting an urgent concern in accordance with this paragraph.

---

Another way to see that there is no such requirement is to look at an opinion issued by Trump's Department of Justice that attempted to push back against a determination by the inspector general for the intelligence community that the whistleblower complaint did indeed qualify as an "urgent concern." On September 24, the Office of Legal Counsel -- a DOJ entity that "provides legal advice to the President and all executive branch agencies" -- issued an 11-page complaint detailing arguments against the determination. Notably, there is no discussion of a firsthand knowledge requirement. If there was, the OLC opinion would undoubtedly have simply stated that the complaint was prima facie inadequate for "urgent concern" status.

https://www.mediamatters.org/federalist/false-report-federalist-about-whistleblower-complaints-fuels-trump-defenders-impeachment

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

---

The evidence so far says no.

Will the Democrats be so agreeable to investigating future Democratic presidents based on hearsay?

Edit: correction: actually the democrats aren't even investigating this matter. They are jumping straight to the impeachment process based on hearsay. Will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process on the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

You really have to understand the basics here. The House has authorized an impeachment inquiry. That is the investigation. After the investigation they will vote on whether to impeach. That is the "indictment". If impeached the Senate will conduct the trial. So we are still in the investigation phase.

As I pointed out in the longer thread, that investigation will entail calling witnesses who may shed light on whether POTUS' statements and acts outside of the phone call support the general charge of using taxpayer money to buy himself a political favor. Also, while the Whistle Blower complaint may be hearsay, the call transcript is certainly not.

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

---

The evidence so far says no.

Will the Democrats be so agreeable to investigating future Democratic presidents based on hearsay?

Edit: correction: actually the democrats aren't even investigating this matter. They are jumping straight to the impeachment process based on hearsay. Will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process on the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

You really have to understand the basics here. The House has authorized an impeachment inquiry. That is the investigation. After the investigation they will vote on whether to impeach. That is the "indictment". If impeached the Senate will conduct the trial. So we are still in the investigation phase.

As I pointed out in the longer thread, that investigation will entail calling witnesses who may shed light on whether POTUS' statements and acts outside of the phone call support the general charge of using taxpayer money to buy himself a political favor. Also, while the Whistle Blower complaint may be hearsay, the call transcript is certainly not.

---

Right, and the transcript shows no evidence of wrong doing. I concede that it may be the case the Trump (smartly) chose his words very carefully, but the transcript gives no evidence of wrongdoing. Asking a favor is not illegal. Asking a favor for a favor could be, but there is no evidence that was the case.

And again, my question still stands, will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process of the next Democrat president based on hearsay? That is the precedent that is being set.

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

---

The evidence so far says no.

Will the Democrats be so agreeable to investigating future Democratic presidents based on hearsay?

Edit: correction: actually the democrats aren't even investigating this matter. They are jumping straight to the impeachment process based on hearsay. Will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process on the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

You mean something like how the investigation of the Clinton Foundation was based on allegations from a partisan oppo-research book called Clinton Cash? Don't remember Hillary calling that "treason", or even complaining about it at all. I do remember Repubs talking about a future impeachment of Hillary during the 2016 campaign, and I also remember Cruz threatening to hold SCOTUS at 8 judges throughout Hillary's entire term if she won and Repubs kept the Senate. That was an investigation, btw, that Andrew McCabe leaked the existence of to the media, while keeping the investigation of the Trump campaign a closely guarded secret.

HuMcK said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

---

The evidence so far says no.

Will the Democrats be so agreeable to investigating future Democratic presidents based on hearsay?

Edit: correction: actually the democrats aren't even investigating this matter. They are jumping straight to the impeachment process based on hearsay. Will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process on the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

You mean something like how the investigation of the Clinton Foundation was based on allegations from a partisan oppo-research book called Clinton Cash? Don't remember Hillary calling that "treason", or even complaining about it at all. I do remember Repubs talking about a future impeachment of Hillary during the 2016 campaign, and I also remember Cruz threatening to hold SCOTUS at 8 judges throughout Hillary's entire term if she won and Repubs kept the Senate. That was an investigation, btw, that Andrew McCabe leaked the existence of to the media, while keeping the investigation of the Trump campaign a closely guarded secret.

---

Yes, exactly like that. So will you support beginning future impeachment proceedings on future democratic presidents based on such evidence?

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

---

The evidence so far says no.

Will the Democrats be so agreeable to investigating future Democratic presidents based on hearsay?

Edit: correction: actually the democrats aren't even investigating this matter. They are jumping straight to the impeachment process based on hearsay. Will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process on the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

You really have to understand the basics here. The House has authorized an impeachment inquiry. That is the investigation. After the investigation they will vote on whether to impeach. That is the "indictment". If impeached the Senate will conduct the trial. So we are still in the investigation phase.

As I pointed out in the longer thread, that investigation will entail calling witnesses who may shed light on whether POTUS' statements and acts outside of the phone call support the general charge of using taxpayer money to buy himself a political favor. Also, while the Whistle Blower complaint may be hearsay, the call transcript is certainly not.

---

Right, and the transcript shows no evidence of wrong doing. I concede that it may be the case the Trump (smartly) chose his words very carefully, but the transcript gives no evidence of wrongdoing. Asking a favor is not illegal. Asking a favor for a favor could be, but there is no evidence that was the case.

And again, my question still stands, will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process of the next Democrat president based on hearsay? That is the precedent that is being set.

---

The transcript read in the context of the actual withholding of funds certainly comes close to a quid pro quo. You don't avoid an extortion charge by "choosing your words carefully" if you later inflict the harm that was the implied threat to begin with.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

---

The evidence so far says no.

Will the Democrats be so agreeable to investigating future Democratic presidents based on hearsay?

Edit: correction: actually the democrats aren't even investigating this matter. They are jumping straight to the impeachment process based on hearsay. Will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process on the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

You really have to understand the basics here. The House has authorized an impeachment inquiry. That is the investigation. After the investigation they will vote on whether to impeach. That is the "indictment". If impeached the Senate will conduct the trial. So we are still in the investigation phase.

As I pointed out in the longer thread, that investigation will entail calling witnesses who may shed light on whether POTUS' statements and acts outside of the phone call support the general charge of using taxpayer money to buy himself a political favor. Also, while the Whistle Blower complaint may be hearsay, the call transcript is certainly not.

---

Right, and the transcript shows no evidence of wrong doing. I concede that it may be the case the Trump (smartly) chose his words very carefully, but the transcript gives no evidence of wrongdoing. Asking a favor is not illegal. Asking a favor for a favor could be, but there is no evidence that was the case.

And again, my question still stands, will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process of the next Democrat president based on hearsay? That is the precedent that is being set.

---

The transcript read in the context of the actual withholding of funds certainly comes close to a quid pro quo. You don't avoid an extortion charge by "choosing your words carefully" if you later inflict the harm that was the implied threat to begin with.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

---

The issue is that we need evidence that the funds were being withheld because of the Biden investigation request. There is nothing in the transcript to suggest that, and no one has presented any evidence of that, other than hearsay. I will ask it again, will the Democrats on here and in Congress be on board with beginning the impeachment process for the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

---

The evidence so far says no.

Will the Democrats be so agreeable to investigating future Democratic presidents based on hearsay?

Edit: correction: actually the democrats aren't even investigating this matter. They are jumping straight to the impeachment process based on hearsay. Will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process on the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

You really have to understand the basics here. The House has authorized an impeachment inquiry. That is the investigation. After the investigation they will vote on whether to impeach. That is the "indictment". If impeached the Senate will conduct the trial. So we are still in the investigation phase.

As I pointed out in the longer thread, that investigation will entail calling witnesses who may shed light on whether POTUS' statements and acts outside of the phone call support the general charge of using taxpayer money to buy himself a political favor. Also, while the Whistle Blower complaint may be hearsay, the call transcript is certainly not.

---

Right, and the transcript shows no evidence of wrong doing. I concede that it may be the case the Trump (smartly) chose his words very carefully, but the transcript gives no evidence of wrongdoing. Asking a favor is not illegal. Asking a favor for a favor could be, but there is no evidence that was the case.

And again, my question still stands, will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process of the next Democrat president based on hearsay? That is the precedent that is being set.

---

The transcript read in the context of the actual withholding of funds certainly comes close to a quid pro quo. You don't avoid an extortion charge by "choosing your words carefully" if you later inflict the harm that was the implied threat to begin with.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

---

The issue is that we need evidence that the funds were being withheld because of the Biden investigation request. There is nothing in the transcript to suggest that, and no one has presented any evidence of that, other than hearsay. I will ask it again, will the Democrats on here and in Congress be on board with beginning the impeachment process for the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The point of the impeachment inquiry portion of the proceedings is to see if there is evidence that would corroborate or destroy the idea that the refusal to fund was based on the failure to investigate Biden. I did a long post on this on the other thread and am not going to repeat it, but there would have been documents and conversations that occurred before and after the transcripted call that might shed light on that question.

Lets see what turns up.

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

The transcript read in the context of the actual withholding of funds certainly comes close to a quid pro quo. You don't avoid an extortion charge by "choosing your words carefully" if you later inflict the harm that was the implied threat to begin with.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

---

If anybody would be an expert on goosing, it would be Joe Biden.

---

Well played.

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

---

The evidence so far says no.

Will the Democrats be so agreeable to investigating future Democratic presidents based on hearsay?

Edit: correction: actually the democrats aren't even investigating this matter. They are jumping straight to the impeachment process based on hearsay. Will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process on the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

You really have to understand the basics here. The House has authorized an impeachment inquiry. That is the investigation. After the investigation they will vote on whether to impeach. That is the "indictment". If impeached the Senate will conduct the trial. So we are still in the investigation phase.

As I pointed out in the longer thread, that investigation will entail calling witnesses who may shed light on whether POTUS' statements and acts outside of the phone call support the general charge of using taxpayer money to buy himself a political favor. Also, while the Whistle Blower complaint may be hearsay, the call transcript is certainly not.

---

Right, and the transcript shows no evidence of wrong doing. I concede that it may be the case the Trump (smartly) chose his words very carefully, but the transcript gives no evidence of wrongdoing. Asking a favor is not illegal. Asking a favor for a favor could be, but there is no evidence that was the case.

And again, my question still stands, will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process of the next Democrat president based on hearsay? That is the precedent that is being set.

---

The transcript read in the context of the actual withholding of funds certainly comes close to a quid pro quo. You don't avoid an extortion charge by "choosing your words carefully" if you later inflict the harm that was the implied threat to begin with.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

---

The issue is that we need evidence that the funds were being withheld because of the Biden investigation request. There is nothing in the transcript to suggest that, and no one has presented any evidence of that, other than hearsay. I will ask it again, will the Democrats on here and in Congress be on board with beginning the impeachment process for the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The point of the impeachment inquiry portion of the proceedings is to see if there is evidence that would corroborate or destroy the idea that the refusal to fund was based on the failure to investigate Biden. I did a long post on this on the other thread and am not going to repeat it, but there would have been documents and conversations that occurred before and after the transcripted call that might shed light on that question.

Lets see what turns up.

---

I'm going to take that as a yes that the Democrats will support beginning the impeachment process based on hearsay of the next Democratic President. I'll bookmark this thread for 3-7 years from now when the republicans do it.

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

---

The evidence so far says no.

Will the Democrats be so agreeable to investigating future Democratic presidents based on hearsay?

Edit: correction: actually the democrats aren't even investigating this matter. They are jumping straight to the impeachment process based on hearsay. Will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process on the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

You really have to understand the basics here. The House has authorized an impeachment inquiry. That is the investigation. After the investigation they will vote on whether to impeach. That is the "indictment". If impeached the Senate will conduct the trial. So we are still in the investigation phase.

As I pointed out in the longer thread, that investigation will entail calling witnesses who may shed light on whether POTUS' statements and acts outside of the phone call support the general charge of using taxpayer money to buy himself a political favor. Also, while the Whistle Blower complaint may be hearsay, the call transcript is certainly not.

---

Right, and the transcript shows no evidence of wrong doing. I concede that it may be the case the Trump (smartly) chose his words very carefully, but the transcript gives no evidence of wrongdoing. Asking a favor is not illegal. Asking a favor for a favor could be, but there is no evidence that was the case.

And again, my question still stands, will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process of the next Democrat president based on hearsay? That is the precedent that is being set.

---

The transcript read in the context of the actual withholding of funds certainly comes close to a quid pro quo. You don't avoid an extortion charge by "choosing your words carefully" if you later inflict the harm that was the implied threat to begin with.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

---

The issue is that we need evidence that the funds were being withheld because of the Biden investigation request. There is nothing in the transcript to suggest that, and no one has presented any evidence of that, other than hearsay. I will ask it again, will the Democrats on here and in Congress be on board with beginning the impeachment process for the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The point of the impeachment inquiry portion of the proceedings is to see if there is evidence that would corroborate or destroy the idea that the refusal to fund was based on the failure to investigate Biden. I did a long post on this on the other thread and am not going to repeat it, but there would have been documents and conversations that occurred before and after the transcripted call that might shed light on that question.

Lets see what turns up.

---

I'm going to take that as a yes that the Democrats will support beginning the impeachment process based on hearsay of the next Democratic President. I'll bookmark this thread for 3-7 years from now when the republicans do it.

---

That is my position, not the Democrats" position. I don't speak for Pelosi, et al.

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Is hearsay admissible in court?

---

Is hearsay often the basis for an investigation?

The pioint here is not how the whistle blower got his or her knowledge, bit whether that knowledge is correct.

Did POTUS attempt to condition US aid to Ukraine on that country's willingness to investigate a political rival?

---

The evidence so far says no.

Will the Democrats be so agreeable to investigating future Democratic presidents based on hearsay?

Edit: correction: actually the democrats aren't even investigating this matter. They are jumping straight to the impeachment process based on hearsay. Will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process on the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

You really have to understand the basics here. The House has authorized an impeachment inquiry. That is the investigation. After the investigation they will vote on whether to impeach. That is the "indictment". If impeached the Senate will conduct the trial. So we are still in the investigation phase.

As I pointed out in the longer thread, that investigation will entail calling witnesses who may shed light on whether POTUS' statements and acts outside of the phone call support the general charge of using taxpayer money to buy himself a political favor. Also, while the Whistle Blower complaint may be hearsay, the call transcript is certainly not.

---

Right, and the transcript shows no evidence of wrong doing. I concede that it may be the case the Trump (smartly) chose his words very carefully, but the transcript gives no evidence of wrongdoing. Asking a favor is not illegal. Asking a favor for a favor could be, but there is no evidence that was the case.

And again, my question still stands, will the Democrats be on board with beginning the impeachment process of the next Democrat president based on hearsay? That is the precedent that is being set.

---

The transcript read in the context of the actual withholding of funds certainly comes close to a quid pro quo. You don't avoid an extortion charge by "choosing your words carefully" if you later inflict the harm that was the implied threat to begin with.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

---

The issue is that we need evidence that the funds were being withheld because of the Biden investigation request. There is nothing in the transcript to suggest that, and no one has presented any evidence of that, other than hearsay. I will ask it again, will the Democrats on here and in Congress be on board with beginning the impeachment process for the next Democratic president based on hearsay?

---

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The point of the impeachment inquiry portion of the proceedings is to see if there is evidence that would corroborate or destroy the idea that the refusal to fund was based on the failure to investigate Biden. I did a long post on this on the other thread and am not going to repeat it, but there would have been documents and conversations that occurred before and after the transcripted call that might shed light on that question.

Lets see what turns up.

---

I'm going to take that as a yes that the Democrats will support beginning the impeachment process based on hearsay of the next Democratic President. I'll bookmark this thread for 3-7 years from now when the republicans do it.

---

That is my position, not the Democrats" position. I don't speak for Pelosi, et al.

---

Ok, when it happens to a Democrat soon, which it will because the republicans are just as slimy as the democrats, I'll expect you to defend the process.