2nd whistleblower comes forward after speaking with IG: Attorney

OK...so you're saying that the transcript is bunk...some sort if disinformation?

 

It may or may not be complete. But in either case even though Trump and Rudy have confessed, it is always good to confirm the testimony with another witness.

 

Confessed...heh...This entire impeachment BS seems to hinge on whether the transcripts are accurate or not. If not, then why? Did Trump order fake transcripts made to hide his devilish crimes? Because if he didn't and the transcripts are accurate, you guys can have 100 whistleblowers come forward all claiming they heard something different than what the transcripts record, and it won't matter.

 

You think we will learn that a second whistleblower does not exist?

 

So...how would you ensure that we have the original?

 

Keep in mind that phone call was only one aspect of the whistleblower complaint

 

Let's find out together!

 

There are only a few crimes where the perception of the victim is sufficient to defeat a criminal charge.

 

The transcript, as released, establish that trump sought campaign assistance from a foreign government in the form of an investigation against his domestic political rival while he simultaneously and unilaterally held up hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid and then he tried to hide, lie about, and obstruct an investigation into that allegation.

 

Let's find out that it's just another big nothingburger?

 

Qualifications to be a whistle blower....Hate Trump

 

There is no connection between the military aid being frozen and asking Ukraine to start up their investigations into the corrupt Bidens.

And just because Biden is a politician seeking the Democratic nomination doesn't make him immune to being investigated, indicted, charged and jailed. Unless you think that some people are more special than others?

 

Campaign Finance Law say and was upheld by SOTUS that information is not of value, so it is not campaign assistants. People do your home work. Not taking sides until I see Articles of Impeachment the man is innocent. Remember this is a process for removal.

 

No, I think that the Democrats have already brought forth the best "whistleblower" they could. This new guy will probably offer nothing new or incriminating besides maybe a few wild allegations that can't be substantiated, but it will be grist for the Mainstream Media's mill until it's all found to be much ado about nothing, then they'll move on. It's the Democrat playbook.

 

More likely, the Democrats didn't know about the second WB at the time the first WB told their story. The administration made a big deal about "second hand evidence." So, after some thought, one of the people who had direct knowledge and who had passed information to the first WB, decided to come forward themselves.

 

And?

 

"And" comes next week. Stay tuned.

 

What comes next week?

 

I am saying it is not a verbatim transcript:

The memorandum released by the Justice Department is not, according to the administration, a verbatim transcript. The text, according to a footnote, is the record of the notes and recollections of the officers and National Security Council policy staff "assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form”

it is a document prepared to serve trumps interests and is as reliable as Nixon’s tape that had an unfortunate 18 minute gap

don’t know if you are old enough to remember the infamous 18 minute gap?

 

So, without knowing what the second whistleblower has to say, you have prejudged it. 'Atta boy!

 

But, but, but....Donald said it was word for word, comma for comma, and exact transcript, yes?

 

"There is no connection."

Just a pure coincidence that trump had simultaneously and unilaterally held up hundreds of millions in military aid. Aid that Republicans, Democrats, and nearly every member of his administration supported and were shocked to learn that he had placed on hold. Aid that his top Ukrainian diplomat felt was being tied to the request for an investigation into Biden. Aid that was only released the day that the idea of the whistleblower complaint became known to the House.

No connection. Right.

 

Again, you need more of citation that some vague reference to a supreme court case.

 

Speaking of playbooks, I like the one you are using right now.

Dismiss the initial whistleblower as unsubstantiated and not credible because it was 2nd hand. And now that a 2nd whistleblower is coming forward with corroborating evidence that is first hand information, it is "nothing new" and "unsubstantiated."