Dems should read all of that and start impeachment. The sooner they can hang themselves the better. C'mon pussies. Let's get this show on the road. Jerry Nadler tried to spearhead it but I guess he is working down at Arby's now or something. You got the meats Jerry.
Swampblower is tight with The Joe Biden and in the tank for him. Big surprise there. NOT. We will have him outed before long. Needs a few more days, or hours, whichever comes first. No way that he is not tight with Brennan too. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...r-when-he-was-vice-president-officials-reveal
Jack Posobiec Verified account@JackPosobiec 2h2 hours ago SCOOP: Three current and former national security officials tell One America News that the CIA whistleblower likely accompanied Biden on one or more of his trips to Ukraine while Vice President - @OANN 389 replies 5,368 retweets 9,152 likes
Yep, you saw my post above and Washington Examiner article I hope. It is beginning to surface. We will out that spy/leaker sometime within the next couple weeks- likely sooner. Then we will examine him in full.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e0c88a-eb6d-11e9-9c6d-436a0df4f31d_story.html At least four national security officials raised alarms about Ukraine policy before and after Trump call with Ukrainian president At least four national security officials were so alarmed by the Trump administration’s attempts to pressure Ukraine for political purposes that they raised concerns with a White House lawyer both before and immediately after President Trump’s July 25 call with that country’s president, according to U.S. officials and other people familiar with the matter. The nature and timing of the previously undisclosed discussions with National Security Council legal adviser John Eisenberg indicate that officials were delivering warnings through official White House channels earlier than previously understood — including before the call that precipitated a whistleblower complaint and the impeachment inquiry of the president. At the time, the officials were unnerved by the removal in May of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, by subsequent efforts by Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to promote Ukraine-related conspiracies, as well as by signals in meetings at the White House that Trump wanted the new government in Kiev to deliver material that might be politically damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Those concerns soared in the call’s aftermath, officials said. Within minutes, senior officials including national security adviser John Bolton were being pinged by subordinates about problems with what the president had said to his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky. Bolton and others scrambled to obtain a rough transcript that was already being “locked down” on a highly classified computer network. But new details about the sequence inside the White House suggest that concerns about the call and events leading up to it were profound even among Trump’s top advisers, including Bolton and then-acting deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman. Bolton and Kupperman did not respond to requests for comment. Officials said that within hours of the 9 a.m. conversation, a rough transcript compiled by aides had been moved from a widely shared White House computer network to one normally reserved for highly classified intelligence operations. According to the whistleblower’s complaint, White House lawyers “directed” officials to move the transcript to the classified system. At the same time, officials were seeking ways to report what they had witnessed, an undertaking complicated by the lack of a White House equivalent to the inspector general positions found at other agencies. As a result, one official who had listened on the call went “immediately” to Eisenberg. By the end of the next day, at least two others who had either heard the call or seen the rough transcript had also done so, said a person familiar with the matter. It is not clear whether Eisenberg took any action either after the warnings he received earlier in July or after the Trump-Zelensky conversation. One official said Eisenberg vowed he would “follow up,” a message interpreted to mean that he intended to investigate the matter and perhaps relay the dismay up the ranks to White House counsel Pat Cipollone. The absence of any clear action by Eisenberg or others may have contributed to decisions by White House insiders to relay their concerns to a CIA employee who assembled the information they supplied into a whistleblower complaint that he submitted Aug. 12 to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general. Those involved in sounding alarms “were not a swamp, not a deep state,” said a former senior official. Rather, they were White House officials “who got concerned about this because this is not the way they want to see the government run.” Officials traced the origins of their initial concerns about Trump and Ukraine to the abrupt and unexplained removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, after she became the target of a right-wing smear campaign that accused her — with no apparent evidence — of undermining Trump and his policies. NSC officials were alternately baffled and alarmed by the behavior of Giuliani, who had agitated for Yovanovitch’s removal and proceeded to declare on cable television interviews that he was pressing Ukraine to reopen a corruption probe of an energy company that had paid Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, as much as $100,000 a month to serve as a board member.
In libtard batshit crazy land, hearsay from an anonymous source is grounds for impeachment. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-whistleblower-may-not-testify-in-person-11570738009 Ukraine Whistleblower May Not Testify In Person
When do we get to hear from these officials in something other than the shadows and anonymous sources? I mean anyone can claim anonymous sources say things. Bring them forward. Let their claims stand.
Hearsay is usable in administrative investigations. You do not have to have first hand knowledge to bring forth a complaint. And why would a whistle blower need to testify to anything. The goal of the investigation is test the veracity of the claim not discourage whistle blowers. The claim was deemed urgent and credible by the inspector general, that’s all we need to know about the whistle blower.