re: The Whstleblower lied from the outset, claimed to have "firsthand" knowledge of misconduct

quote:

---

Question: are you more concerned about process or about the allegation?

The IG confirmed that he vetted the complaint and found it both urgent and credible.

---

The IG was Atkinson, who is a Clinton lackey, so GTFO with that shite. Everyone else who was charged with determining the gravity of the complaint stated it did not meet the legal standard requirement of "urgent concern".

And we all read the transcript, and know the "allegation" is/was bullshite.

The favor asked was about CrowdStrike and to look into reports of Ukrainians admitting to meddling in 2016 on behalf of Hillary.

Zelensky was the one who brought up Rudy, and indirectly Biden.

A request to simply cooperate with Barr/Durham on investigations they are doing is not illegal.

And asking him to see if there was any corruption going on with Hunter Biden or when Joe extorted them for a billion in loans if he didn't fire the prosecutor general is perfectly reasonable, because asking a country leader to look into possible (more like obvious) corruption in his country is perfectly reasonable.


There was no quid pro quo promise, so the whistle-blower, Schiff, and the media were WRONG about that.

There was no extortion/threat of withholding of funds to pressure Zelensky to do Trump's bidding, so the whistle-blower, Schiff, and the media were WRONG there too.

Zelensky stated he was not pressured, and the Ukrainians didn't even know the military aide had been held back until a month later. Plus several Congressmen have already come forward and admitted Trump told them prior to this call to hold back the aide from multiple countries until they promised to pay more towards their own military, so that was the reason for holding back aide. Something he had hammered the EU and UN on since he was elected. Paying more towards military resources and not relying on the US so much.

And again, Zelensky didn't even know that happened.

The allegation is complete bullshite. You clowns are acting like the transcript and all these other facts don't exist, only the narrative created by the whistle-blower matters to you. So piss off. You're a buffoon.

BMY is an Antifa supporting Douche Bag !! Enough said !!

quote:

---

1) There is no law requiring first hand information

---

That’s not the point. The point is that the whistleblower claimed on the complaint form that he had first-hand knowledge when, in fact, he did not. The form is signed as truthful under threat of perjury. Thus, the whistleblower lied and likely perjured himself. The entire complaint should be thrown out since it was fraudulently submitted.

They aren't a Whistleblower. They don't meet the standards. They are a leaker.

quote:

---

The ENTIRE premise of the "whistleblower" complaint is based on a lie. He claimed to have "firsthand" information when he in fact did not.

---

IIRC he checked both boxes. The law simply does not require first hand knowlwdge regardless of what the form implies.

Are you concerned about the form because you want the whistleblowers identity revealed?

Even if he is rabidly anti-trump it shouldn't matter and frankly that is probably the case... IMO Facts are all that should matter. That's the entire premise of protecting whistleblowers.

quote:

---

Huh?

---

What confuses you about the Ukrainian matter?

From what was reported:
- A 2nd party overheard something from someone who overheard something from a phone call between the president and the Ukrainian President.
- In an attempt to score political points and push the collusion narrative, the 2nd hand "hearsay" information was pushed out to lead the public to believe impropriety happen.
- The Dems were stupid, and didn't think about a transcript of the call.
- POTUS releases the transcript to the public, and at that moment, the public now has more accurate information than the whistleblower.
- Leftist coup attempt #3 falls apart, and idiots still say "peachmint".

This is what is known by everyone with a working brain.

What really happened...
- Adam Schiff was approached by a dem plant that had access to Trump's phone calls.
- Not ready to let a good lie go to waste, Schiff pushes this guy to approach the IG and become a "whistleblower".
- Schiff and his blower push the narrative but are too stupid to understand how actual transcripts work.
- Idiotic leftists, licking their wounds from their failed "muh Russia" collusion attempt are exceedingly desperate so they will believe anything against Trump because "Orange Man Bad".
- As predictable as the next sun rise, the plans of the retards on the left backfires tremendously as Trump releases the full transcripts negating the entire hearsay whistleblower and Schiff.
- Caught up in their obscene stupidity, Schiff, the media, and the left keep saying "Ukraine" in hopes that the public isn't smart enough to understand what hearsay is. (FWIW, when talking about liberals, they are 100% correct).

In short, more fake news, more fake accusers, more coup attempts. We will be dealing with this until Trump's 2nd term ends.

quote:

---

The IG also found that the whistleblower had authorized access to documents that would have given him first hand knowledge. Right?

---

Link?

quote:

---

There is no law requiring first hand information

---

Until this summer there was.

quote:

---

That's the entire premise of protecting whistleblowers.

---

You are not a whistleblower by making things up, pushing them out as facts, then having them completely negated by the actual phone calls. That makes you a liar. Why are you dying on this hill?

quote:

---

Who gives a frick? The whistleblower testimony was a complete lie that was negated by the transcript. Why can't you understand this? That is the exact reason why hearsay arguments are not admissible in court. Because they are likely bullshite

---

The complaint alleges that...
Ukrainian officials were "led to believe that a [future] meeting or phone call between" Trump and Zelensky would depend on Zelensky's willingness to "play ball"

The phrase "depends on" mean that the phone call we have transcripts of was contingent upon Ukraine being willing to "play ball".

Why would you expect to see a quid pro quo in the actual transcript?