[adorno]

Having first-hand knowledge of a call that was completely legal, makes no difference. The second-hand knowledge whistleblower was not going to be able to make the case against Trump, so Schiff and company scrambled to find somebody with ‘fird-hand’ knowledge. Unless any one of them can prove wrongdoing with the call, they’ll both blow Schiff’s chances for a coup against Trump.

Second-hand/first-hand: unless they can fabricate and prove something different from what’s in the call transcript, it’s game over for Schiff.

[Sacajaweau]

Everyone knows that the first "spy" is no longer credible since he LIED on the face of the complaint, that there are untruths in the complaint and he must have had help crating the complaint. There's just too much information to say otherwise.

The TWO whistleblowers MUST BE intricately tied together and "B" probably is the source for "A".

I think it's the Taylor guy. He was trying to put words in Volker's mouth and Volker shut him down.

And I'm betting the WB "A" is not going to testify unless he gets immunity.

[stockpirate]

The President is outside the preview of the whisleblower statute as is doesn’t work for the intelligence community....

[Iscool]

Having first-hand knowledge of a call that was completely legal, makes no difference.

Trump did not write the transcript, he only spoke...A stenographer type person wrote it (and a few heard it being spoken who agree with the written report)...So it's that person's word against the new, fake whistleblower...

So what's first hand knowledge mean??? The WB heard it from someone who listened in on the call, or the WB was one of the few listening to the call??? I would suspect the latter in which it should take much to root out the lying mole...