Because they messed up the wording.
You’d have to change the whistleblower laws to put in a requirement for 1st hand knowledge.
Though given the 2nd whistleblower has first hand knowledge of the call in question, it’s a bit moot.
I’m wondering why Rudy isn’t giving these affidavits to the proper American authorities. 
Clinton is responsible for 9/11 just like Trump is credited for jobs created before he became President.
All of it.
Garbage, no quid, no quo, no threat, no drama.
Schiff is going to get a subpoena for his own self.
Trump demands a vote so the R can call witnesses for testimony and bring the charade out of the shadows where pelosi likes to lurk.
1 Like
Did you just post a twit from a guy sitting on a couch in a t-shirt and a hoody?
Just like any great fiction cliffhanger there magically appears another BETTER liar.
Will this one hide in the nether region of anonymity?
You have energized Trump voters. Is that what was intended?
1 Like
You’re right, we should be upset, fat donald was just kidding.
https://twitter.com/huffpost/status/1180928835384217600?s=21
Could it be Deborah Ramirez?
Trump’s supporters are even talking like him. Scary stuff.
1 Like
Incase anyones actually curious to read the law in question
Section B, 8-9.
" (8)take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment because of—
(A)any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—
(i)
any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or
(ii)
gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety,
if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs; or
(B)any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—
(i)
any violation (other than a violation of this section) of any law, rule, or regulation, or
(ii)
gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety;
(9)take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, any personnel action against any employee or applicant for employment because of—
(A)the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation—
(i)
with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8); or
(ii)
other than with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8);
(B)
testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting any individual in the exercise of any right referred to in subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii);
(C)
cooperating with or disclosing information to the Inspector General (or any other component responsible for internal investigation or review) of an agency, or the Special Counsel, in accordance with applicable provisions of law; or
(D)
refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law, rule, or regulation;"
1 Like
I really am going to have a ■■■■ eating grin if it’s Bolton.
It isn’t, but still.
Many trump supporters are talking like him.
https://twitter.com/geraldorivera/status/1180851382573772800?s=21
Funny geraldo talking about snitches of all people
1 Like
Why?
…
Yeah…I know and what a coincidence that it allows the leaker to label themself a whistleblower? Is hearsay allowed in a court of law? Why would that have been changed…and so recently?
Aylo…is there anybody in there?
I’m wondering when these guys are gonna realize the hearsay argument is utter ■■■■ and stop using it
Jesus…
No he isnt.
And trump can demand all he wants. He has no power in the house.
Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. … Generally, state law follows the rules of evidence as provided in the Federal Rules of Evidence, but not in all cases. The states can and do vary as to the exceptions that they recognize.
Why was this changed, who changed it and when was it changed?
