For anyone who's been vacationing off-planet: Dems screaming to impeach president

If you're too busy holding a job, raising kids or running a business to pay much attention to politics, you may not have heard that Democrat politicians are trying to impeach the president.

The cause of the latest firestorm is a complaint from an anonymous person who claims to have been told by other officials about a phone conversation between Trump and the president of Ukraine.

The anonymous accuser is considered a "whistleblower," and gets special protections.  But wait...the rule used to be that a person could only make such a claim if he or she had "first-hand knowledge" of wrongdoing.  Did that change?

Why yes, it did.  By total coincidence, just two months ago someone in the intelligence community quietly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers must have actually witnessed alleged wrongdoing.

This change only came to light after the current "whistleblower" made his or her claim.

What a coincidence, eh?  How...convenient.

The newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just three days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. 

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.”


The whistleblower's complaint against Trump is riddled, not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant:

• “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials...”
•  “officials have informed me...”
•  “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me...”
•  “the White House officials who told me this information...”
•  “I was told by White House officials,”
•  “the officials I spoke with...”
•  “I was told that a State Department official...”
•  “I learned from multiple U.S. officials...”
•  “One White House official described this act...”
•  “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me...”
•  “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials...”
•  “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting...”
•  “multiple U.S. officials told me...”
•  “I learned from U.S. officials...”
•  “I also learned from a U.S. official...”
•  “several U.S. officials told me...”
•  “I heard from multiple U.S. officials...” and
•  “multiple U.S. officials told me...”

This, fellow Americans, is nothing more than gossip.  Hearsay.  And Dems want to use it to remove a duly-elected president they don't like.

If the Republicans have anyone with a decent IQ on their side, they need to get this traitorous asshole in front of cameras and ask this: 

"Your 'complaint' mentioned roughly 20 instances in which you claim un-named government officials told you things you claim are contra to the national security of the United States, and which Democrats are using to try to impeach the president.  We now ask you: identify each person who gave you each claimed piece of information.  Remember, you are under oath.  And you cannot claim 5th-Amendment privilege because you claim to have done nothing wrong."

This, of course, will not happen, because roughly half of the so-called Republicans in congress [spit!] are actually Democrats in disguise.

I do note that although the scum-bag Adam Schiff said the "whistleblower" was scheduled to appear before congress last Monday, that didn't happen.  My guess is that the traitorous asshole's attorney has advised him that he''s likely to be asked to name his sources, and failing that, could be in some minor legal jeopardy.  (No one actually believes he'd be jailed, of course.)

Pelosi even said that it would be worth losing her party's control of the House if they could impeach Trump.

Interesting year coming up, eh?
===

For source story click here.