I have been watching this news story develop slowly and trying to digest it carefully.
It might be a witch hunt and it might not be, there is simply not enough information known to the public by which we can make any sort of real judgement about the complaint. So we just have to sit and wait while both sides grandstand and see what comes out of all of this. The whistleblower law and process exist for a reason and they must be allowed to work either way.


Having said that I think Trump has said something extremely stupid and risky, well above his usual odd comments.

Trump stated that the person who released the information should be treated like a spy and dealt with like in the old days. This comment is undermining the whistleblower process and Trump is walking a very fine line here given his comments could easily be interpreted as intimidating/threatening a witness. At the very least this comment is highly unprofessional and disrespectful to a law that tries to serve as a check against an abusive government and at the worst Trump is intimidating anyone who might testify against him and suggesting violence against the whistleblower or anyone who helped him.

I have repeatedly said to others that the Ukraine thing and the Russia thing do not have enough proof to justify impeaching Trump but with this comment of his he just gave the democrats the best argument for impeachment yet. And unlike the Ukraine or Russia stories, this is a lot easier to prove. Trump's best defense in this matter would probably end up being the argument that Trump always talks like this and means nothing by it.

Make sure you watch the correct stations.  So the "whistleblower" heard from someone else a story.  Usually if someone blows the whistle, it's first hand knowledge.  Not like friend of a friend.  And the guy who's testifying (Schieff) is making up a transcript.  Trump has someone who copies word for word all his conversations.  He's not stupid.  He also knows that on both ends, someone is probably listening in.  So a nothing burger to distract from the actual guild Bidens and the Epstein story.

Many have been fooled by WMD's, then again by the Russia Hoax and will be fooled again due to TDS.

Ask yourself why is it the fake news puts once again Trump in the spot light, but not the sketchy parties (Biden's)?  Fool me once, shame on me...

*Edit

Forgot to mention the whistleblower rule was changed in August of this year....I wonder why...#tinfoil

Make sure you watch the correct stations.  So the "whistleblower" heard from someone else a story.  Usually if someone blows the whistle, it's first hand knowledge.  Not like friend of a friend.  And the guy who's testifying (Schieff) is making up a transcript.  Trump has someone who copies word for word all his conversations.  He's not stupid.  He also knows that on both ends, someone is probably listening in.  So a nothing burger to distract from the actual guild Bidens and the Epstein story.

Many have been fooled by WMD's, then again by the Russia Hoax and will be fooled again due to TDS.

Ask yourself why is it the fake news puts once again Trump in the spot light, but not the sketchy parties (Biden's)?  Fool me once, shame on me...

*Edit

Forgot to mention the whistleblower rule was changed in August of this year....I wonder why...#tinfoil

Part of the whistleblower's complaint is firsthand knowledge and part is secondhand/hearsay. Now when it comes to hearsay it is still of evidentiary value. Hearsay and secondhand knowledge is not as strong as firsthand knowledge but that doesn't mean it can be disregarded. What fake news is there here, the news isn't making up what was contained in the transcript? They aren't making up that there is a whistleblower complaint lodged.


But again, my issue here is not whether Trump's conversation contained a violation of law or not, my issue is with what Trump said about the whistleblower. Even if the whistleblower is lying or a crackpot, Trump's comments are still absolutely unacceptable. The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected. Imagine it was Obama who made the same statement of an implied threat to a whistleblower, don't you think republicans would be flipping out over it?

Part of the whistleblower's complaint is firsthand knowledge and part is secondhand/hearsay. Now when it comes to hearsay it is still of evidentiary value. Hearsay and secondhand knowledge is not as strong as firsthand knowledge but that doesn't mean it can be disregarded. What fake news is there here, the news isn't making up what was contained in the transcript? They aren't making up that there is a whistleblower complaint lodged.


But again, my issue here is not whether Trump's conversation contained a violation of law or not, my issue is with what Trump said about the whistleblower. Even if the whistleblower is lying or a crackpot, Trump's comments are still absolutely unacceptable. The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected. Imagine it was Obama who made the same statement of an implied threat to a whistleblower, don't you think republicans would be flipping out over it?

Hahaha.
The guy that's for red flag laws talking about how [size=78%]The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected.[/size]

Part of the whistleblower's complaint is firsthand knowledge and part is secondhand/hearsay. Now when it comes to hearsay it is still of evidentiary value. Hearsay and secondhand knowledge is not as strong as firsthand knowledge but that doesn't mean it can be disregarded. What fake news is there here, the news isn't making up what was contained in the transcript? They aren't making up that there is a whistleblower complaint lodged.


But again, my issue here is not whether Trump's conversation contained a violation of law or not, my issue is with what Trump said about the whistleblower. Even if the whistleblower is lying or a crackpot, Trump's comments are still absolutely unacceptable. The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected. Imagine it was Obama who made the same statement of an implied threat to a whistleblower, don't you think republicans would be flipping out over it?

The GOP has never backed up Trump for anything.  Look at the fake Russia story, they never came together as a group calling for an investigation into anyone involved.  NOr did they for the wire tapping of Trump Tower, etc...You did have a few members say something, but not the entire party like how the entire DNC goes after Trump.

Trump calls it like it is and knows BS when he sees it.  Remember he knows all his conversations are being recorded by someone on either side.  So you think he's dumb enough to say something that would get him in trouble?  This is another attempt by the DNC who lost a rigged election and a fake Russia story they fed sheep for 2 years that cost millions of dollars.  TDS at it's finest.  The kicker is, instead of investigating the real crook, the DNC is calling for an investigation into Trump.  Many awoke people already knew years ago about Biden and Ukrain.  So this isn't new.  Same awoke people knew of the BS Russia story, the rigged DNC nomination and many other events.

What about Pelosi's son who had some involvement with Ukraine?  Bet that wasn't on the fake news yet. Why do you think she's calling again for an impeachment.

Hahaha.
The guy that's for red flag laws talking about how [size=78%]The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected.[/size]

heads

The GOP has never backed up Trump for anything.  Look at the fake Russia story, they never came together as a group calling for an investigation into anyone involved.  NOr did they for the wire tapping of Trump Tower, etc...You did have a few members say something, but not the entire party like how the entire DNC goes after Trump.

Trump calls it like it is and knows BS when he sees it.  Remember he knows all his conversations are being recorded by someone on either side.  So you think he's dumb enough to say something that would get him in trouble?  This is another attempt by the DNC who lost a rigged election and a fake Russia story they fed sheep for 2 years that cost millions of dollars.  TDS at it's finest.  The kicker is, instead of investigating the real crook, the DNC is calling for an investigation into Trump.  Many awoke people already knew years ago about Biden and Ukrain.  So this isn't new.  Same awoke people knew of the BS Russia story, the rigged DNC nomination and many other events.

What about Pelosi's son who had some involvement with Ukraine?  Bet that wasn't on the fake news yet. Why do you think she's calling again for an impeachment.

How can you actually suggest Trump is smart enough to not say things that will get him in trouble? Most of the issues democrats are looking to crucify him over are the dumb things he has said. Asking for a favor from Ukraine, making a threat against a whistleblower, potential obstruction issues, etc etc. Yes, Trump is saying things that are getting him in trouble. The Russia story wasn't fake but the evidence just didn't end up proving what the democrats wanted it to prove but even then Trump said dumb things that just fed the conspiracy belief. Trump made things worse for himself.

And the GOP is not obligated to follow Trump and jump to his defense. The democrats complain that the GOP leaps to Trump's defense too often so I don't know why you think it isn't often enough. Most of the republicans are smarter than to shout off like Trump and can take more realistic actions when some allegation looks political.

I don't know any details about Pelosi's son's involvement in Ukraine yet so I cannot comment but what does that have to do with Trump's comments about the whistleblower? Lets say there is some actual illegal activity by Pelosi or by her son, does that excuse Trump? That answer doesn't really inspire confidence that the interest is in finding the truth but rather looking for something to justify  an already held belief. Trump says "look over there" and then we forget about what he did wrong.

Hahaha.
The guy that's for red flag laws talking about how [size=78%]The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected.[/size]

Do you have an actual thought of substance on the issue or you just like shallow cheap shots?

I don't know any details about Pelosi's son's involvement in Ukraine yet so I cannot comment but what does that have to do with Trump's comments about the whistleblower? Lets say there is some actual illegal activity by Pelosi or by her son, does that excuse Trump? That answer doesn't really inspire confidence that the interest is in finding the truth but rather looking for something to justify  an already held belief. Trump says "look over there" and then we forget about what he did wrong.

Well, according to your Hirono-esque logic, one must investigate both otherwise you’re a hypocrite. But if it’s Pelosi, it’s about interest in finding the truth as looking to “justifying an already held belief”? 

Do you have an actual thought of substance on the issue or you just like shallow cheap shots?

it's not worded as such, but it's a legitimate question
do you feel your opinion about whistleblower protection is consistent with your view on red flag laws?

Trump does say mean things, but he is still president and not in jail. So when i say "trouble", i mean gets him either arrested  or kicked out of the presidency. Hurt feelings doesnt count. And how many things have he said that opened the door to more investigations and arrest. Ill give you a hint. Puerto Rician government officals arrested a few months ago...he said nasty things about them prior to.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Well, according to your Hirono-esque logic, one must investigate both otherwise you’re a hypocrite. But if it’s Pelosi, it’s about interest in finding the truth as looking to “justifying an already held belief”?

I am refraining from commenting about Pelosi's son because I don't know anything about the case. I never said we shouldn't investigate and I am not against it, I just don't know enough to make a call on the issue.

Regardless, it is completely off topic.

it's not worded as such, but it's a legitimate question
do you feel your opinion about whistleblower protection is consistent with your view on red flag laws?

I don't see how whistleblower protection is comparable to red flag laws so I wouldn't consider it consistent or inconsistent.


Do you not think we need to protect the whistleblower process? Do you not think it is problematic for Trump to threaten whistle blowers (even if the threat is not a clear and direct threat?

Trump does say mean things, but he is still president and not in jail. So when i say "trouble", i mean gets him either arrested  or kicked out of the presidency. Hurt feelings doesnt count. And how many things have he said that opened the door to more investigations and arrest. Ill give you a hint. Puerto Rician government officals arrested a few months ago...he said nasty things about them prior to.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Well obviously nothing has got him put in jail or dethroned yet but I would say the two things in the news are pretty good candidates.

Personally I would say his comments about Ukraine are pushing the boundaries but it would be hard to prove in court criminality but as I said I think he crossed the line with his threat against the whistleblower.

I don't see how whistleblower protection is comparable to red flag laws so I wouldn't consider it consistent or inconsistent.

Maybe because neither the blower or the complainant in a red flag will be held liable for false intel?

Well obviously nothing has got him put in jail or dethroned yet but I would say the two things in the news are pretty good candidates.

Personally I would say his comments about Ukraine are pushing the boundaries but it would be hard to prove in court criminality but as I said I think he crossed the line with his threat against the whistleblower.

The blower is making stuff up and he knows it.  The DNC knows it, but sheeple don't know it.  Awoke people know it.  He knows all his calls are being recorded in 1 way or another.  But he's just trolling the DNC before the call is released.  So is this a good candidate for him to be impeached?  Like how Russia was also a good candidate for impeachment?  Like how WMD's were a good candidate to invade Iraq?  Fool you once, shame on you, fool you 2,3,4 times then it's time to wake up.

1) I am refraining from commenting about Pelosi's son because I don't know anything about the case. 2)I never said we shouldn't investigate and I am not against it, I just don't know enough to make a call on the issue.

3) Regardless, it is completely off topic.

1) Are you serious?  When has your lack of knowledge about something previously prevented you from commenting? 
2) Ok, but my point, again, is your hypocrisy.  Which some others have pointed out, but you seem to quickly dismiss. . .
3) Again, my point is the hypocrisy.  Both yours and with politicians in GENERAL, hence applies to all of this whistleblower games that seem like teenage BS.  You brought it up in the Biden thread, yet here it's not on topic.  That's the whole point. . .

Steve Hilton: What no one has been reporting about the Trump-Ukraine impeachment saga

Understood it's OPINION, not facts.  But try to look at this in an unbiased perspective. 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/steve-hilton-reporting-trump-ukraine-impeachment-saga

They've been wanting to get President Trump since 2016. They want to remove this democratically-elected president by non-democratic means, regardless of the evidence. It was so helpful of Hillary to confirm that last week. And so much for their pious lectures on democracy and the rule of law.

Last Sunday we went through the impeachment charges: Inviting foreign meddling and a quid pro quo of military aid. The foreign meddling claim is a joke. It happens every day in Washington through foreign government lobbying. The Democrats are up to their necks in foreign meddling.
 
Nancy Pelosi took money from Ukraine lobbyists. Chuck Schumer took money from Saudi Arabia and Mexico. These sanctimonious charlatans on their high horse over foreign interference in our democracy have no problem with it when it's donations to their campaigns and jobs for their relatives and when it's asking Ukraine for dirt on Trump, as Democratic senators did last year. And, of course, when it's funding a dossier to bring Trump down.
 
In any case, elected leaders always wear their government hats and that of a politician. The idea that Donald Trump committed an abuse of power by bringing politics into a foreign relationship is a joke. They all do it. Trump is just more open about it.

The reason the Democrats and the ruling class are so up in arms about it is that it's exposing a central feature of their swampy business model.

If you go back to the Biden thread, investigate or don't investigate.  Whatever.  This type of stuff only serves to uncover more of the swamp and dealings, which I think is justified.  But justified in that all of them are dirty, even more so with those slinging the mud. 

Forgot, Kerrys son and Romneys son also...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Forgot, Kerrys son and Romneys son also...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I guess Hirono is "safe" then.  She doesn't have a son. . .

IG could not explain 18-day window between Ukraine call and whistleblower complaint: sources

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, in testimony to House lawmakers about the whistleblower complaint on President Trump's controversial phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, could not explain what accounted for the 18-day window between the July 25 call and the Aug. 12 complaint filing — or when exactly the whistleblower contacted a key Democrat's staff, sources familiar with the testimony told Fox News.

The whistleblower's contact with Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff's staff before filing the complaint in mid-August has prompted renewed scrutiny of Schiff.

The top Democrat previously said “we have not spoken directly to the whistleblower,” but his office later revised the claim, saying that Schiff himself "does not know the identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the whistleblower or their counsel" for any reason.

Sources familiar with Atkinson's closed-door, transcribed interview Friday with members of the House Intelligence Committee also noted that Atkinson said the whistleblower did not disclose the contact – during that 18-day window – with Schiff's office, as Fox News first reported Friday. Sources said Atkinson testified that the whistleblower, in filing the complaint, left "blank" a section in which he or she could have disclosed that congressional contact.

Be careful when you dig, you never know what you're gonna uncover. . .

Not saying that the above is true.  Not saying that Trump is innocent.  That said, I suspect before too long, this will get deeper and the tendrils will go where those who called for "open and transparent" process don't want it to go. . .