General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's Ukraine Call Was 'Crazy' and 'Frightening,' Official Told Whistle-Blower
The whistle-blower wrote a memo describing an official who heard the call as visibly shaken by it.
By Nicholas Fandos
Oct. 8, 2019, 3:47 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON A White House official who listened to President Trumps July phone call with Ukraines leader described it as crazy, frightening, and completely lacking in substance related to national security, according to a memo written by the whistle-blower at the center of the Ukraine scandal, a C.I.A. officer who spoke to the White House official.
The White House official was visibly shaken by what had transpired, the C.I.A. officer wrote in his memo, one day after Mr. Trump pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in a July 25 phone call to open investigations that would benefit him politically.
A palpable sense of concern had already taken hold among at least some in the White House that the call had veered well outside the bounds of traditional diplomacy, the officer wrote.
The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the officials view, the president had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own re-election bid in 2020, the C.I.A. officer wrote.
The document provides a rare glimpse into at least one of the communications with a White House official that helped prompt the whistle-blowers formal complaint to the intelligence communitys inspector general detailing a broad pressure campaign on Ukraine. The complaint and a reconstructed transcript released by the White House formed the basis of the House impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump.
The inspector general, Michael Atkinson, handed the two-page memo over to Congress last week. A person familiar with its contents described it to The New York Times. Fox News first reported details from it. Neither a lawyer for the whistle-blower nor a spokeswoman for Mr. Atkinson immediately responded to requests for comment.
</snip>
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)...because relatively speaking the ten minutes of excerpts they released are so much less incriminating than the 20 minutes they are sitting on...
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)OrlandoDem2
(2,065 posts)Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)...for their testimony.
Response to Dennis Donovan (Original post)
Post removed
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Graham's been on and on about "hearsay" but Congress can Impeach on what they've got.
Regardless, 2nd Whistleblower with 1st-hand knowledge is supposedly in the works.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)deal, right. Because people are calling the second WB the one related to tax returns.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)I can't think from all these whistles.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,616 posts)And in the case of impeachment, normal criminal justice rules of evidence do not apply.
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)The so called "transcript" although undoubtedly highly edited confirms the whistleblower complaint. It does not matter if they deny that, they are going to spin to fox news no matter what the evidence is. This is not hearsay.