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

[Belsnickel]

(09-27-2019, 09:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Glad we agree that the report was hearsay. I think I was the first in this thread to suggest it as such and a bunch of smart guys told me I had no idea. The next thing I'm curious to see is the relationship the sources had with the whistleblower. Hopefully he was in their chain of command. If so, then no one should be able to refute the information provided.

As to the allegations of Political Bias. It means nothing to me.

These were back-to-back posts that occurred before you even got involved in the thread. After this point, the issue of the whistleblower obtaining the information through hearsay was never brought up again, as far as I can recall.

(09-23-2019, 03:34 PM)Goalpost Wrote: So it is being reported that the whistleblower's info is thru hear say. He didn't actually hear it 1st hand.

(09-23-2019, 03:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Completely agree. Just refusing to follow the law and turn over the complaint is an impeachable offense in itself.


This is highly doubtful considering a Trump appointed listed the complaint as both credible and urgent. Were the whistleblower's complaint based on hearsay, I doubt it would've been classified in that manner, especially by someone appointed by the administration.

Edit: I've seen the sourcing on this not from extremely biased media. So it seems it was indirect knowledge not obtained through the normal course of work by the whistleblower. The issue still remains that the IG determined the complaint to be credible and urgent, which is the highest classification they can give such complaints and requires by law to be sent to Congress.

Notice that immediately upon learning new information, I corrected my statement.

Now, when we actually read the complaint, the idea that the whistleblower only knew of this through hearsay and not through their normal course of work seems to be inaccurate. Page 1 of the report indicates that this information was relayed to them "in the course of official interagency business." This was done because "[i]t is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis." So it was a part of their normal activities within their government role. On page 3 we learn that the whistleblower "was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call." This means that they had been provided with the readout of the call before making their report. This is not hearsay. They had the primary source documentation.

To sum up: it wasn't entirely hearsay like the White House tried to claim, it was information obtained through the normal employment activities of the whistleblower, and you're trying to be a martyr for something you had no part in.