Do You libs realize that your "whistleblower" got his "bombshell" information from reading the New York Times & has NO 1st HAND INFORMATION?
He did not witness ANY conversation of the president or any other involved party .
- 1 week ago
No I never knew that. Thanks for telling me
- Anonymous1 week ago
Your assertion that the whistleblower got their information from the New York Times is simply false. The Times had not reported on this issue before the whistleblower complaint was made public. The whistleblower got their information from other people who relayed information to him. Their report was vetted by the Inspector General who found it credible. But, more importantly, other evidence has been made public which proves the whistleblower's account. We've got the transcript of the call, made available by the White House itself, which proves that the Whistleblower's account of the phone call was accurate. We've got testimony from something like a dozen other witnesses which corroborates the story that the Trump administration was trying to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival.
As for the information being second hand, that's irrelevant, at least at this point. While someone getting information second hand can impact the reliability of that evidence (since mistakes can be introduced during transmission of information) it does not invalidate it as an investigative tool. If someone comes in to the police with second hand information about a crime, the cops don't simply ignore it. Instead they investigate. An example is the murder of Hae Min Lee, which was covered in the first season of the hit podcast Serial. The cops, in this case, began to focus on Lee's ex boyfriend because they got an anonymous tip (secondhand information) which claimed that the boyfriend was behind it. But as they investigated they found other information which seemed to implicate the boyfriend. The same thing is true here. If we were just talking about a "he said she said" sort of thing where the whistleblower claims something and Trump claims another then your argument about the whistleblower being unreliable might hold water. But as we've already established, they discovered other evidence which implicates Trump.
- Weasel McWeaselLv 71 week ago
Is that the latest Hannity talking point? more made up bullsh*t?
I can google articles about Elvis working in a Burger King, in Minnesota.
doesn't make them true.
- JamesLv 72 weeks ago
We realize that regressives fantasies don’t change the facts of Chump’s crimes.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- GypsyfishLv 72 weeks ago
Doesn't matter, The letter from the whistleblower clearly said that he/she was not on the phone call. But now several people have corroborated what the whistleblower said happened.
- samLv 62 weeks ago
- Anonymous2 weeks ago
Once this impeachment farce falls through Trump is going to have all the ammunition he needs to not only portray Democrats as uninterested in governing for those they're supposed to represent but a fundamental threat to democracy and the way of life we've all taken for granted for too long.
- ?Lv 72 weeks ago
I would love to hear your supporting evidence
- xg6Lv 72 weeks ago
So what flavor Kool Aide did you drink