Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[Dill]

(09-27-2019, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would it be OK to say the whistleblower was not a witness to any of the acts and the first-hand witness are anonymous? 

I guess it would be "ok,"  just not important.  It would be something to repeat on Tucker, Hannity and Ingraham, cuz then it sounds like the "second hand" facts have not been confirmed.  How can they start an impeachment inquiry on hearsay???? TRUMP HATE!!

Anyone accustomed to reading intel documents can see, from the report alone, how the relevant facts, chronology, and causal chain have been tightly locked down by someone who knows how to vet evidence, selecting what would be legally relevant from the mass of what is not.

Now that the facts, chronology, and causal connections have been and continue to be confirmed, there is no legitimate reason to refer to the evidentiary record as "based on hearsay" or the product of a "second-hand witness." 

--unless the intent is to confuse people who don't bother reading primary sources or familiarizing themselves with the law.  They won't really know what's there, except that it is "hearsay" and maybe from someone coached by Dems to cover Biden's abuse of office. . . etc.