Barr needs to throw the whistleblower complaint out, its based on an illegal revision of the law

[kyzr]

AG Barr needs to throw out the whistleblower complaint because its based on an unlawful revision of the original whistleblower law.
The original law said that the whistleblower had to have "firsthand knowledge" of the wrongdoing. This entire setup of Trump is illegal.

The Intelligence Community Secretly Removed The First-Hand Knowledge Of Wrongdoing Requirement For Whistleblower Reports
"Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

Should Barr keep the original as-written requirement of "firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing" in any whistleblower complaint, and throw out this illegal complaint? Take a poll...

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn’t matter

A credible report was filed and investigated by the IG
The “firsthand knowledge” wording is in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Barr can deny whistleblower protections but cannot deny the basic facts of the complaint

 

[depotoo]

Doesn’t matter

A credible report was filed and investigated by the IG
The “firsthand knowledge” wording is in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Barr can deny whistleblower protections but cannot deny the basic facts of the complaint

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn’t matter

A credible report was filed and investigated by the IG
The “firsthand knowledge” wording is in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Barr can deny whistleblower protections but cannot deny the basic facts of the complaint

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

 

[Defiant1]

Doesn’t matter

A credible report was filed and investigated by the IG
The “firsthand knowledge” wording is in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Barr can deny whistleblower protections but cannot deny the basic facts of the complaint

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

 

[kyzr]

Doesn’t matter

A credible report was filed and investigated by the IG
The “firsthand knowledge” wording is in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Barr can deny whistleblower protections but cannot deny the basic facts of the complaint

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

Actually the law only applies to persons under the DNI, with firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing.
It does not apply to "hearsay" about the president and his right to "executive privilege" when speaking to foreign heads of state.
The House is making stuff up as they go since Clapper put his CIA spy into the Whitehouse and then re-wrote the whistleblower law to suit their needs.
The GOP Senate is a roadblock that the dems and the MSM can't escape. Any impeachment is DOA at the Senate, Mitch will just ignore it.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn’t matter

A credible report was filed and investigated by the IG
The “firsthand knowledge” wording is in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Barr can deny whistleblower protections but cannot deny the basic facts of the complaint

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn’t matter

A credible report was filed and investigated by the IG
The “firsthand knowledge” wording is in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Barr can deny whistleblower protections but cannot deny the basic facts of the complaint

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

Actually the law only applies to persons under the DNI, with firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing.
It does not apply to "hearsay" about the president and his right to "executive privilege" when speaking to foreign heads of state.
The House is making stuff up as they go since Clapper put his CIA spy into the Whitehouse and then re-wrote the whistleblower law to suit their needs.
The GOP Senate is a roadblock that the dems and the MSM can't escape. Any impeachment is DOA at the Senate, Mitch will just ignore it.

The law protects whistle blowers

It does not dictate what information can be investigated. In this case, the second hand information proved to be correct

 

[kyzr]

Doesn’t matter

A credible report was filed and investigated by the IG
The “firsthand knowledge” wording is in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Barr can deny whistleblower protections but cannot deny the basic facts of the complaint

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

The report was "credible" but not valid.
The whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge, and the wrongdoing was not under the DNI's authority.

 

[OldLady]

Doesn’t matter

A credible report was filed and investigated by the IG
The “firsthand knowledge” wording is in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Barr can deny whistleblower protections but cannot deny the basic facts of the complaint

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

Yes, the report was valid so once again the Trumpsters will focus on the extraneous bullshit instead of the fact that Trump got caught doing a no-no.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn’t matter

A credible report was filed and investigated by the IG
The “firsthand knowledge” wording is in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Barr can deny whistleblower protections but cannot deny the basic facts of the complaint

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

The report was "credible" but not valid.
The whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge, and the wrongdoing was not under the DNI's authority.

Makes no sense

Police investigate crimes all the time based on second hand information.
I did not see the murder, but I overheard someone talking about it.

 

[kyzr]

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

The report was "credible" but not valid.
The whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge, and the wrongdoing was not under the DNI's authority.

Makes no sense

Police investigate crimes all the time based on second hand information.
I did not see the murder, but I overheard someone talking about it.

How about this, a wealthy guy like Soros puts up billboards around Langley saying that he'd pay well for anyone who "leaks" or "composes" wrongdoing about Trump. Brennan sets up a CIA agent in the Whitehouse to gather "hearsay evidence". Then the CIA agent gives the "evidence" to the Soros' team of lawyers to craft the complaint. While this is going on the Law is changed to allow second hand "hearsay" evidence instead of "firsthand knowledge".

All of this is taking place to counter the Biden's prolific pillaging of the Ukraine and China, which the dems have zero interest of investigating. These charges against Trump pale in comparison to Hillary's crimes during 2016 when she hired agents to hire Russians to create the "Steele Dossier", which was used by the FBI to spy on Trump. The Hillary and Biden crimes are real, the accusations against Trump are not even crimes, so says the DOJ and Dershowitz.

 

[Bush92]

Democrats try to make-up the law as they go along.

 

[Bush92]

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

The report was "credible" but not valid.
The whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge, and the wrongdoing was not under the DNI's authority.

Makes no sense

Police investigate crimes all the time based on second hand information.
I did not see the murder, but I overheard someone talking about it.

What “law” centers on the Presidents right to have confidential conversations with foreign leaders?

 

[miketx]

In the prison, we used to call people like most of you jail house lawyers.

 

[rightwinger]

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

The report was "credible" but not valid.
The whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge, and the wrongdoing was not under the DNI's authority.

Makes no sense

Police investigate crimes all the time based on second hand information.
I did not see the murder, but I overheard someone talking about it.

How about this, a wealthy guy like Soros puts up billboards around Langley saying that he'd pay well for anyone who "leaks" or "composes" wrongdoing about Trump. Brennan sets up a CIA agent in the Whitehouse to gather "hearsay evidence". Then the CIA agent gives the "evidence" to the Soros' team of lawyers to craft the complaint. While this is going on the Law is changed to allow second hand "hearsay" evidence instead of "firsthand knowledge".

All of this is taking place to counter the Biden's prolific pillaging of the Ukraine and China, which the dems have zero interest of investigating. These charges against Trump pale in comparison to Hillary's crimes during 2016 when she hired agents to hire Russians to create the "Steele Dossier", which was used by the FBI to spy on Trump. The Hillary and Biden crimes are real, the accusations against Trump are not even crimes, so says the DOJ and Dershowitz.

Hearsay evidence is still evidence

It is up to the investigating authority to determine if it was credible. In this case, it was

 

[rightwinger]

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

The report was "credible" but not valid.
The whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge, and the wrongdoing was not under the DNI's authority.

Makes no sense

Police investigate crimes all the time based on second hand information.
I did not see the murder, but I overheard someone talking about it.

What “law” centers on the Presidents right to have confidential conversations with foreign leaders?

Trump was conducting a routine call and took it in a direction that was unexpected. He was surrounded by aides at the time.

It was those aides who questioned the legality of the conversation. The whistle blower consolidated those remarks and reported it

 

[Defiant1]

You do realize they can’t randomly change the law themselves to suit their purposes, right...
Power they take for themselves could one day haunt even you...

The law applies to protecting whistleblowers not how reports of illegal actions are investigated

The IG received a report he found credible and investigated it. Trump covered it up

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

The report was "credible" but not valid.
The whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge, and the wrongdoing was not under the DNI's authority.

Makes no sense

Police investigate crimes all the time based on second hand information.
I did not see the murder, but I overheard someone talking about it.

Call the police and tell them your neighbor who has had his car broken into, is parking his car in the garage instead of leaving it in the driveway like you think he should.

 

[Bush92]

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

The report was "credible" but not valid.
The whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge, and the wrongdoing was not under the DNI's authority.

Makes no sense

Police investigate crimes all the time based on second hand information.
I did not see the murder, but I overheard someone talking about it.

What “law” centers on the Presidents right to have confidential conversations with foreign leaders?

Trump was conducting a routine call and took it in a direction that was unexpected. He was surrounded by aides at the time.

It was those aides who questioned the legality of the conversation. The whistle blower consolidated those remarks and reported it

Was it? How do we know? What direction did he take it that was “unexpected?” I read the transcript and everything sounded casual to me. Liberals grasping at straws to “get Trump.”

 

[Bush92]

The IG should be investigated.
The Senate needs to subpoena him.

On what grounds?

The report was valid

The report was "credible" but not valid.
The whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge, and the wrongdoing was not under the DNI's authority.

Makes no sense

Police investigate crimes all the time based on second hand information.
I did not see the murder, but I overheard someone talking about it.

How about this, a wealthy guy like Soros puts up billboards around Langley saying that he'd pay well for anyone who "leaks" or "composes" wrongdoing about Trump. Brennan sets up a CIA agent in the Whitehouse to gather "hearsay evidence". Then the CIA agent gives the "evidence" to the Soros' team of lawyers to craft the complaint. While this is going on the Law is changed to allow second hand "hearsay" evidence instead of "firsthand knowledge".

All of this is taking place to counter the Biden's prolific pillaging of the Ukraine and China, which the dems have zero interest of investigating. These charges against Trump pale in comparison to Hillary's crimes during 2016 when she hired agents to hire Russians to create the "Steele Dossier", which was used by the FBI to spy on Trump. The Hillary and Biden crimes are real, the accusations against Trump are not even crimes, so says the DOJ and Dershowitz.

Hearsay evidence is still evidence

It is up to the investigating authority to determine if it was credible. In this case, it was

Or they just passed it on so liberals wouldn’t come after them because they are a spineless turd.