[semimojo]

To accept these assertions, one has to accept the complainant's word uncritically.

Well, him and Trump’s ICIG:

”As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,””

[philman_36]

LINKS! It's all about LINKS!

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

Would you like me to go over some glaring inconsistencies within that News Release, semimojo?

[philman_36]

You know what I find really odd? Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations. That statement, which BTW comes shortly after your pull quote, directly contradicts your earlier assertion that the whistleblower "had direct knowledge".

How could you miss that?!

Remember those inconsistencies I spoke of? Here is one...

The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”

See what I mean? Isn't it a crime to lie on Federal forms?