2nd whistleblower comes forward after speaking with IG: Attorney

Multiple aspects of my post reference facts that were not listed in the transcript (like his efforts to hide, lie about, and obstruct the investigation). But there are whole host of conversations and issues surrounding the actual phone call which a second whistleblower (or the 200th) can detail for the American people.

 

I think those individuals have an incentive to ensure that Trump is presented in the best light possible.

 

Would you mind elaborating on why you believe the transcript contradicts the WB complaint?

 

what I think s that Donald trump is well known for being vindictive.... such that any employee would have great, and legitimate concern to be perceived as being disloyal.

and, think in any such exercise as this, you use judgement decide what to include and which everyone agrees with,,, and so the process is inherently vulnerable to subjectivity and influence... in which it is very possible to shade the result in a way that is not lying.... but is deceptive by omission

and that is where the whistle blowers come in.... they provide a An uninfluenced backstop to double check whether the transcript left out any relevant details... for whatever reason

if it turns out that the so called transcript was transparent with the facts.... great. But think both you and I are not so naive to think that is the case. If the whistle blowers come up with a different story.... there seem to be a plethora of people nvolved who can be subpoenaed.... Maybe all of the. Will back up the submitted transcript...... maybe not

so, just as a point of speculation... let’s suppose there is controversy.... let’s suppose witnesses are called.... and let’s suppose that undue influence was used shape the transcript
How would you feel about that speculative circumstance? From what you know of TRUMP, do you think such sort of interference is far beyond anything he (or his lankiest) would do?

mike, I am sure you are aware of all the stuff that went on with suppressing info about his affairs... basically paying off people, getting the national enquirer to buy and bury stories, etc. so it seems to me inconceivable that a straight forward person such as you would deny that trump is the sort of guy who schemes to bury unflattering information and who viciously demands absolute loyalty of the people working for Him.....you are not going to deny that, are you mike?

 

You are trying to deflect the significance of a cooraborative whistleblower. The first whistler had fetid fecal flop thrown on 'him' because he is an indirect whistler. This new whistler is reported to have had direct knowledge.

 

How many conservative judges did he seat?

 

#ThanksMcConnell

 

Lol gotta give Harry Reid an assist on that too

 

I found a video of Democrat President actually promising to be more flexible after his election with Russia. You must have been OUTRAGED!!

 

I found a video of a Republican President actually saluting a North Korean general.

 

How outrageous!! Did he promise to be more flexible also?

 

So the complaint covered:

1. The phone call
2. restricting records related to the call
3. Ongoing concerns
4. Circumstances

Sheesh, I had hoped your guys could put together a better story after going belly up on Russia collusion. You're going to have to do much better than this. Right now, your first article of impeachment looks like this:
1. Reasons
2. TBA

 

So....you think that they fudged the released transcript?

 

This all boils down to you thinking that yes, the released transcript has been altered.

OK, so we know there is another, word-for-word transcript, and one can reasonably assume there is an actual recording of the call. So if those don't agree with your WB's, I guess the next step is to assume Trump had both of those altered....and on and on.

In other words, this is just like Russia collusion. You've already reached the verdict, and now you are just trying to find something, anything to justify it.

Good luck with that.

 

The better question is what is in the transcript that you think is an impeachable crime?

 

No
I think that it was spun and massaged to reduce the impact on trump..... that is very different from altered

Again no
If there is a word for word transcript.... why was this non word for word transcript presented

even leaving that aside.... there is a constellation of facts... like was aid cut off

also.... I find it peculiar that someone would become a second whistle blower if the transcript provided an accurate rendition of the facts.... why would someone do that?

As I recall, we started this discussion about the relevance of the second whistle blower... who you proposed as irrelevant, then I expounded on what I thought was the relevance. You will note that this is not a discussion of my view of trumps guilt.

let’s leave Russia out of this

 

If you think the transcript is "spun" than what you are saying is that it's accurate, but the Trump administration is fooling everyone into thinking it says something different from what it says?

And I agree that it's weird that a second whistleblower is coming out to agree with the first whistleblower's story, even though we have the transcripts. So although it's a good question as to why the second WB came out under those circumstances, it's an even better question as to why the first one came out, when his accusations were blown away by the actual transcript?

The fact that we are in an imaginary impeachment inquiry I think answers those questions. As Joe Biden said, it's truth over facts. It doesn't matter what the transcripts says, you guys are already on the impeachment train. Facts are irrelevant.

That's why this is a thread about a second WB even though we already have the transcripts.

 

What do you mean restrict access to the transcript IT'S CLASSIFIED AT BIRTH of course it has restricted access and since early on persons within the intelligence community were ILLEGALLY leaking such classified at birth information the intelligence community decided to take extra care with such presidential classified information.

 

What "facts not listed in the transcript"? Why would the decision to put the transcript on a higher level security ( because that was being done since the early days of the administration because of deep state leaking of that classified information) be in the transcript?

 

Who has said that is factual? Did the complainer state that the transcript did not accurately reflect the conversation?

 

SCOTUS Kavanaugh! Now I remember! There too were multiple false witnesses coming out one after one... may I continue with the analogy?

Judge Kavanaugh is still SCOTUS!

 

not again? And it’s only Monday...

 

No
I am saying that it has some truth to it, but is incomplete and has been selectively compiled by the trump team

that is a pretty simple claim. I am not sure why you constantly feel the need to tell me what I think. (Is that the transcript is lies, the transcript is bunk)

Actually, I do not know all that much about the transcript
I certainly do not TRUST the trump administration to produce an edited transcript that is not edited in a way to benefit trump. And even if it were a word for word transcript (which it is not). Still there is verification required to insure it is what it claims to be as well as other evidence to be gathered ie regarding why aid was withheld, and how trump came to be concerned about corruption in Ukraine.

I do not claim to know what will be discovered.... do you make this claim for yourself?

Well I think there were a couple of trump suggestions that he wanted to counter

is it a fact that trump claimed the first whistle blower was all wrong and was particularly wrong in that he did not actually hear the conversation? If necessary I can find trump making theses claims.... so let’s assume he did make those claims...and let’s assume there is another person...who actually HEARD the calls, and who felt the first whistle blower accurately characterized the situation..... then the point of the second whistle blower coming forward would be to counter what trump said.... but I already said all that at the outset of our conversation

Well let’s agree that there must be a reason
I suggest the logical reason is that initially trump refused to release the transcript, so it would be impossible for this guy to know what would or would not be released

Sorry, very much not imaginary... subpoenas are being issued

Still gathering facts, Mike
You would agree that facts should be gathered?

That said, I
As I (and many other people) read the law, there has already been a significant violation.... whether that is impeachable ... or more importantly convictable... are separate questions

I would agree trump will not be convicted in the senate

no
This thread is because trump said the first whistle blowers was way wrong, and was only reporting hearsay

how many times must I say this same thing?

 

mike... you are illustrating EXACTLY why we do not trust the faux transcript. Look at what you are doing over and overt and over again. You rephrase what some one else says in a way that you feel is accurate, but they do not. Is it so hard to believe that trump officials would do exactly what you are doing when they take what other people said and rephrase them (with spin) just as you are doing

 

So the 2nd WB, may have heard the conversation, and it may contradict the transcript, which brings us to...