Second Whistleblower Comes Forward!

[Deleted member 21794]

You seem to not even realize that you’re seeking to divert from the actual topic - what Trump did. You just yap about irrelevancies. Again. Just as your Dear Leader programs you to do.

Your dodge is once again noted. Do you plan on posting about any facts regarding the topic? For example, do you think the second whistleblower may be lying about firsthand knowledge like the first one?

How about the concept of facing one's accuser? What are your thoughts on making accusations then fighting to remain anonymous? Let me guess: you're making exceptions in the case of Trump.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Yes, because FACTS coming out about Adam Schiff colluding to commit sedition and the gossiper lying about firsthand information should be kept concealed!

lie.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Conclusion: The first gossiper complaint is quite tainted. And given DemocRATS' tendency to do stupid shit, it's likely the second complaint is a sham as well.

That is a giant and fallacious logical misstep.

 

[ObamacareForever]

The second whistleblower is as irrelevant as the first.
President Trump released the actual transcripts. Nobody is going to believe some
lying hack's opinion of that phone call when we have the actual transcript of that call.
Edited

The transcript is one piece of evidence. There will be more, which will paint the entire picture.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

I can't say I blame them. After the first whistleblower was caught lying, after Schitt got caught lying about having contact with him, after the first gossiper was outed as a registered DemocRAT, why not double down?

I wonder if the second whistleblower's story will crumble apart as fast as the first....

So we've gone from death by 1,000 cuts to hopefully death by 10,000 cuts. Meh...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396

There will be a 3rd and a 4th. etc. Someone heard something from someone and ran to the Democrats.

It's the Kavanaugh hearing exactly the same script. Desperation .

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Your dodge is once again noted. Do you plan on posting about any facts regarding the topic? For example, do you think the second whistleblower may be lying about firsthand knowledge like the first one?

How about the concept of facing one's accuser? What are your thoughts on making accusations then fighting to remain anonymous? Let me guess: you're making exceptions in the case of Trump.

One word: Transcript.

None of your wacky attacks against whistleblowers matter. Not to sane, smart people anyway.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Hillary is as big a dumbass as Trump. One dumbass praising another.

Hillary said no such thing about Trump. I'd hope you could tell what's a lie and what isn't when it comes from Trumpies.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

There are no such “holes.” The transcript and the texts make the case. You seem to know that, which leads you to yap about irrelevant diversions, just as your Dear Leader has programmed you to do.

Trump lies and tells conspiracy theories and his supporters believe every word.
When Trump tells the truth and confesses his crime, they refuse to believe him.

 

[voyager]

Hillary said no such thing about Trump. I'd hope you could tell what's a lie and what isn't when it comes from Trumpies.

She may not have but my post is still the truth. You are as blind to her as the people you point at for being blind about Trump.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

See, we leftists are creative.

We make up the charges. Coordinate with subversives. Leake it to the press then watch it explode !

Then all we need to do is make up the story !!! and fill in the gaps.

As long as you have a compliant media to flood the societal discourse with nothing but outrage and loaded claims 24/7 against Trump, there's no room for reviewing if the outrage and claims are actually accurate.

And, it's not as if the leftist media would want to have to face the music on false claims anyways. Leave the wrong claims behind and make up new ones!

 

[JuliefromOhio]

She may not have but my post is still the truth. You are as blind to her as the people you point at for being blind about Trump.

She didn't praise him....so your nod to that false statement was your being complicit with that lie.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

Turns out the second whistleblower- is the one who told the first whistleblower what they heard. Second hand LOL !!!!

 

[EatTheRich]

Gee, I thought the topic was the second whistleblower report and how it relates to the first.

Let's start with some basic facts reported:

1) The first gossiper lied about having firsthand knowledge.
2) Whistleblowers have typically been people with firsthand knowledge, such as bookkeepers spotting malfeasance in accounting.
3) The first gossiper didn't even come about his secondhand knowledge in the course of his work duties
4) Adam Schitt coordinated in advance with the first gossiper.

Conclusion: The first gossiper complaint is quite tainted. And given DemocRATS' tendency to do stupid shit, it's likely the second complaint is a sham as well.

The IGs said the first whistleblower did have firsthand knowledge.

 

[EatTheRich]

The second whistleblower is as irrelevant as the first.
President Trump released the actual transcripts. Nobody is going to believe some
lying hack's opinion of that phone call when we have the actual transcript of that call.
Edited

1. We do not in fact have the actual transcript. If Trump wanted to clear things up, he would release the audio recordings used to produce the memo you keep dishonestly calling the “actual transcript.”
2. The so-called transcript shows unquestionably illegal behavior.
3. The whistleblower complaints go well beyond the evident illegal behavior during the phone conversation.

 

[EatTheRich]

Hillary is as big a dumbass as Trump. One dumbass praising another.

Not to mention, it’s a lie.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/people-like-donald-trump/

 

[Deleted member 21794]

The IGs said the first whistleblower did have firsthand knowledge.

Which version was the IG referring to- I or II?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

One word: Transcript.

None of your wacky attacks against whistleblowers matter. Not to sane, smart people anyway.

Bugsy: It's OK for whistleblowers to lie! Honest!

 

[EatTheRich]

Which version was the IG referring to- I or II?

Sorry, I’m not sure what made up bullshit you’re referring to here.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Bugsy: It's OK for whistleblowers to lie! Honest!

Sheesh, you’re still going with that debunked Trump bullshit?

The transcript vindicates the whistleblower’s account in spades.

You should move on to a less ludicrous bullshit story.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Sorry, I’m not sure what made up bullshit you’re referring to here.

The first scammer, er, whistleblower gave conflicting accounts as to whether he or she had firsthand knowledge. Which version should we believe?