The whistle blower form in April of 2019 to include secondhand accounts

a reply to: shooterbrody

Ask the Ukrainian president No pressure Ask the Ukrainian president No pressure

Ask Tony Soprano's "associates." No pressure.

a reply to: Phage
Lol
Are really using fiction to justify the dems ATTEMPTED fiction?

Lol
Ok brudah
Shaka

a reply to: shooterbrody

No. I'm saying that Zelensky's "no pressure" statement cannot be taken at face value under the circumstances.

You're not my bruddah, brah. And shaka is something tourists like to say.

a reply to: Phage
Yeah cause foreign leaders lie all the time for trump

Lol
You are a laff riot

You have ANY evidence of that or just a "i saw it once on colombo" explanation for that too?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah cause foreign leaders lie all the time for trump

If they want to keep him happy they do. Some even say that they like him. Even Putin.

Trump is easy to flatter.

a reply to: Phage
So shaka was appropriately used
As you actually are a tourist, marla.

a reply to: Phage
Bring the evidence bruda.
Otherwise,
I will wait for your scooby doo explanation.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Nope.
Fifth generation here.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm just speculating, but I doubt there is any evidence that will change your mind.

a reply to: Phage
No worries.
Get back to kojak reruns.
Perhaps you will get another theory for tomorrow brudda.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah.

Any way. Back to the topic. There never was any "rule" about second hand information being used in a whistleblower complaint.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm just speculating, but I doubt there is any evidence that will change your mind.

Oh by all means bring the evidence.
As right now ALL there is is "speculation"

Everything asked for has been released.
Potus stole your thunder.
I understand being upset becsuse you were outplayed by the bad orange man.

No evidence plus impugning the character of the newly elected Ukrainian president is bad optics brudda.
Why not just make up more bs?

a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm not upset at all.
I think the brouhaha is hilarious. Especially the panic tweets.

No evidence plus impugning the character of the newly elected Ukrainian president is bad optics brudda.

I'm not blaming a victim.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah.

Any way. Back to the topic. There never was any "rule" about second hand information being used in a whistleblower complaint.

The fact that you are championing 2nd hand bs is all that needs to be shown.

You are reduced to unsubstantiated rumors.

Hey brudda you know dat howlie is lyin.

Lol

a reply to: shooterbrody

The fact that you are championing 2nd hand bs is all that needs to be shown.

I guess the IG is championing it too then. And he has access to more information about it.

a reply to: Phage
The ig never said the information the whistleblower provided was factual or true.
Nice try at spin brudda

a reply to: shooterbrody

Right. He said:

For the reasons discussed below, among others, I have determined that the Complainant has reported an "urgent concern" that "appears credible."

Since he has access to more information than I do, I have no reason to argue. Do you?

originally posted by: Phage

Nine pages?

He went from not knowing anything to basically quoting the conversation, one he was not even at.

Just seems to me that is a ton of investigation attached to those 9 pages. Man on a mission and not a lot of other stuff to do.

a reply to: Xtrozero

He went from not knowing anything to basically quoting the conversation, one he was not even at.

Recounting what others had told him, yes. That seems to be the case.

Man on a mission and not a lot of other stuff to do.

I would think that as an (alleged) CIA analyst assigned to the White House it would seem that his job would entail talking to people about international stuff, and people telling him stuff. Sort of in the job description, I would think. Apparently he was told some stuff that caused him (and others) concern.

Speculation, including the CIA part, but perhaps we'll learn more about it.

a reply to: Phage
Lol
Nice try
www.rev.com...

Dr. Wenstrup: 01:43:50 But I’m also glad to know that many Americans have seen this movie too many times and they’re tired of it. But let me get to some questions, sir if I can. Let’s go to the word, credible. Credible does not mean proven true or factual, would that be correct in this situation?

Joseph Maguire: 01:44:10 I find no fault in your logic, Congressman

Dr. Wenstrup: 01:44:12 Okay, so you know the interpretation it was credible, but also was that decision made by the IG before seeing the transcript of the conversation?

Joseph Maguire: 01:44:23 I believe that the ICIG conducted to the best of his ability, the investigation. And he found to his ability that based on the evidence and discussing it with the whistleblower, that he thought that in fact it was credible.

Dr. Wenstrup: 01:44:40 The IG didn’t necessarily have the transcript of the conversation.

Joseph Maguire: 01:44:43 He did not, no he did not.

Nice try
The ig just made sure the paperwork was filled out and filed correctly.
Please do not pretend he completed a comprehensive investigation.

He DID NOT EVEN HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS.

slate.com...

On Wednesday, the DOJ released a statement announcing that the agency had determined that “that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted.”

Sorry
Seems the investigation is complete.
At least the criminal portion.


Facts can be a bear brudda