I can't stand Schiff but if it's by the book, I don't have a problem with it:

Why is that a problem? If someone comes to me and says “I saw your neighbor raping a 12 year old girl in the yard last night and your neighbor has threatened to kill me in the past, I don’t know who to turn to except you, what do I do?” I will offer them advice on how to contact the authorities.

If someone went directly to Donald Trump with dirt on Adam Schiff would you say it would be admissible?

I'm sure the whistleblower new the proper channels to report to. How dumb to think other wise.

The proper channels. You mean like giving it to traitor Bill Barr?

How do we know it was second hand information? I heard Trump saying that but Ive heard others say it wasnt second hand.

Well for starters its clearly not by the book: Its a leak. He's a CIA officer who was leaking classified information to democrats for political purposes outside of official channels. He's hardly the first or only anti-Trump leaker from inside the IC, so that's not even really notable. What is substantial is how it undermines the legitimacy of the impeachment process, which relied on the narrative that they're just following the initiative of a whistleblower acting in good faith. Schiff had a hand in setting up the very complaint he then cited as cause to start impeachment, conspicuously keeping silent his role in it. That's just more evidence that the house democrats were searching for an excuse to start impeachment proceedings, proactive rather than reactive.



The complaint itself acknowledges he never had access to the call and was only relating it second-hand.
I'm speculating without proof but I think its becoming increasingly likely that this same CIA officer was the leaker who previously leaked Trump's calls to Mexico & Australia, which resulted in the anti-leak security measures that this CIA officer was complaining about so conspicuously. At any rate, he clearly didn't have access to this call, and filing the complaint using second-hand information. (and claiming he had first-hand ancillary information, or in other words, nothing).

That's also apparently the reason why he got several facts of the phone call wrong, like the report of any quid pro quo.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 2 2019 02:04pm

Since when has he been convicted of a crime? Also beside the point since who he reported to would of been the same with or without Adam.

This post was edited by Landmine on Oct 2 2019 02:05pm

Could be open to interpretation. When cops say they are gonna hunt suspects down is that considered a threat?🤔

Yes, they are going to kidnap them and lock them in a cage.

And cops hunt down criminals. Whistleblowing isn't a crime btw we aren't talking about a criminal.

Arguments by analogy are the weakest form of argument.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 2 2019 02:20pm

cops have a legal right to hunt people down, and even they are restricted from shooting nonviolent criminals trying to flee and can't break into properties without a warrant.

presidents don't have a legal right to hunt anyone down, let alone a whistle blower, which has a legal set of rules protecting them from situations just like this. he could instruct his DOJ to hunt down a lawbreaker, and whistle blowing isn't illegal. that's why they're protected and why you can't sign an NDA in many cases when illegality is concerned.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 2 2019 02:26pm