Originally posted by Timothy
View Post
Per CNN: “The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.”
By definition this person is not a “whistleblower” with provable evidence ready to be turned over and deserving of legal protection.
This person is someone who is spreading hearsay.
All of the rest of it is just NOISE!
The reason the acting director of intelligence did not pass on the complaint to Congress is simple: the source is not credible.
[...]
There were many first hand witnesses to the alleged phone call where the (non) whistleblower was said to have derived their facts — albeit not first hand. No one is corroborating the (non) whistleblower’s narrative.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kevi...lower-n2553460
By definition this person is not a “whistleblower” with provable evidence ready to be turned over and deserving of legal protection.
This person is someone who is spreading hearsay.
All of the rest of it is just NOISE!
The reason the acting director of intelligence did not pass on the complaint to Congress is simple: the source is not credible.
[...]
There were many first hand witnesses to the alleged phone call where the (non) whistleblower was said to have derived their facts — albeit not first hand. No one is corroborating the (non) whistleblower’s narrative.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kevi...lower-n2553460
smiley hat tip.gif to MM
Comment