Whistles Blown

 

I think I understand it now:

The first whistleblower got the phone call story firsthand from the second whistleblower who was privy to the call at first. So the first one is really the second one, and the one that was second is really first. The second one, who was first, passed firsthand info to the first, who was really second, so the first reported secondhand account was documented second because the second was the one who heard it first. What screwed them up was not understanding the second a whistleblower hears information first it should not be sent as a firsthand account to a second person, but presented first to everyone so no one will for a second consider it at first false.

Do I have it about right?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 18 comments.

  1. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    This is all theater. Ask Andy McCarthy.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/impeachment-inquiry-house-must-vote-or-its-just-democratic-stunt/

    In point of fact, the House has no impeachment inquiry; congressional Democrats have an impeachment political campaign.

    Under federal law, the offense of obstructing Congress applies when “any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House.” Again, neither the House nor any of its committees has voted to conduct an impeachment inquiry. There is no formal impeachment proceeding to obstruct. Furthermore, the letters in question are not actually demands carrying the compulsory force of law; technically, they are just informal requests. No one is required to comply with a mere request, and refusing to do so is not evidence of anything, let alone obstruction.

    The House has issued some subpoenas. For example, the House Oversight Committee has just directed a subpoena to the White House, addressed to chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, reportedly demanding the production of a vast array of records (documents, communications, etc.) pertaining to the president’s conduct of relations with Ukraine.

    Typical of the Democrats’ legerdemain in this matter, the Oversight Committee has not voted to conduct an impeachment inquiry, nor did it vote to issue subpoenas (as, by contrast, the Oversight Committee voted to subpoena the White House just a few weeks ago for records germane to a suspected violation of federal recordkeeping laws). Instead, Chairman Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) strategically waited until the House closed for a two-week recess; then issued a memo on Wednesday, absurdly claiming that there was too much urgency to wait so a vote could be taken; then issued the subpoena late Friday, thus ensuring that no Republican could object and no Democrat would be forced to go on record supporting impeachment, which much of the public strongly opposes. Under House rules, the Oversight chairman has been delegated unilateral authority to issue subpoenas, so the subpoena is valid, but it is also pure gamesmanship.

    But the Intelligence committee has no such power.

    • #1
    • October 8, 2019, at 5:36 PM PDT
    • 10 likes
  2. Barfly Member

    What does it say that the Dems are the only people who can hear these whistles? There’s a joke in there somewhere …

    • #2
    • October 8, 2019, at 5:41 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  3. Arahant Member

    • #3
    • October 8, 2019, at 5:56 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  4. Richard Fulmer Member

    Wait…, who’s on first?

    • #4
    • October 8, 2019, at 6:22 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  5. Arahant Member

    • #5
    • October 8, 2019, at 7:01 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. Gossamer Cat Coolidge

    Thank you for clearing this up.

    • #6
    • October 8, 2019, at 10:09 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  7. Juliana Member

    Sounds right to me.

    • #7
    • October 9, 2019, at 5:57 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Valiuth Member

    Barfly (View Comment):

    What does it say that the Dems are the only people who can hear these whistles? There’s a joke in there somewhere …

    It says that Republicand have put their fingers in their ears. 

    As the defense of Trump always relies on the willfull ignorance of his supporters and their strained double think. Forever reaching new depth of ignorance and hypocrisy. 

    • #8
    • October 9, 2019, at 7:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Old Bathos Member

    I guess I could be a whistleblower under the new rules with no requirement of direct knowledge if I sent this to Congress:

    Dear Congress Dudes and Dudettes:

    I heard from my friend Larry who heard it from Steve that

    (1) a bunch of CIA employees are spending time gabbing about classified materials to which they were not supposed to have access

    (2) Steve says there is a Hatchling Act or something that says federal employees can’t do political sh*t on the job which these guys were doing beaucoup times.

    (3) Larry is totally PO’ed that these deadbeats are calling themselves “whistleblowers” since when he was in the Army he once reported procurement stuff and got reamed by his superiors. Super unfair that these other guys just try to leak stuff they don’t know squat about and get lawyers and stuff.

    (4) If you fire these loser CIA types and save money on salaries, can I get a reward? Larry says it’s called Kee Tam (dumb name) and you have to send a check to the whistleblower (me).

    Sincerely,

    Secret Whistleblower who can be reached at [email protected]

    Come to think of, my letter is probably more consonant with whistleblower law than the CIA dude/dudette working for Schiff.

    • #9
    • October 9, 2019, at 9:40 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  10. Old Bathos Member

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    What does it say that the Dems are the only people who can hear these whistles? There’s a joke in there somewhere …

    It says that Republicand have put their fingers in their ears.

    As the defense of Trump always relies on the willfull ignorance of his supporters and their strained double think. Forever reaching new depth of ignorance and hypocrisy.

    Kinda harsh. A heck of a lot of the “defenses” of Trump on Ricochet tend to be of the well-reasoned, well-grounded variety. There is nothing in the behavior or beliefs of even Mr. Trump’s most uncritical adherents that comes remotely close to the vileness of the lies directed at Justice Kavanaugh or the drumbeat of assinity, willful ignorance and doublethink required to buy into the Great Russian Collusion hoax. 

    I am inclined to overlook silly claims that Mr. Trump not only does no wrong but is playing 3-D chess with his adversaries. I do so because of the unprecedented moral squalor that characterizes so many of his enemies.

    • #10
    • October 9, 2019, at 9:48 AM PDT
    • 12 likes
  11. Barfly Member

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    What does it say that the Dems are the only people who can hear these whistles? There’s a joke in there somewhere …

    It says that Republicand have put their fingers in their ears.

    As the defense of Trump always relies on the willfull ignorance of his supporters and their strained double think. Forever reaching new depth of ignorance and hypocrisy.

    Well, you easily win in the deployment of adjectives. Not so much in the way of reason, but it’s something.

    • #11
    • October 9, 2019, at 10:23 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  12. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    As the defense of Trump always relies on the willfull ignorance of his supporters and their strained double think. Forever reaching new depth of ignorance and hypocrisy. 

    Some serious TDS there. That must hurt.

    • #12
    • October 9, 2019, at 11:05 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  13. DrewInWisconsin, Thought Leader Member

    Cal Lawton:

    I think I understand it now:

    The first whistleblower got the phone call story firsthand from the second whistleblower who was privy to the call at first. So the first one is really the second one, and the one that was second is really first. The second one, who was first, passed firsthand info to the first, who was really second, so the first reported secondhand account was documented second because the second was the one who heard it first. What screwed them up was not understanding the second a whistleblower hears information first it should not be sent as a firsthand account to a second person, but presented first to everyone so no one will for a second consider it at first false.

    Do I have it about right?

    There was a third whistleblower on the grassy knoll.

    • #13
    • October 9, 2019, at 12:05 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  14. Old Bathos Member

    So the second to blow was the first know

    And misled the first about a quid pro quo.

    Starting to think each just a twit

    Partisan crapweasels each full of Schiff.

    • #14
    • October 9, 2019, at 12:49 PM PDT
    • 10 likes
  15. Gossamer Cat Coolidge

    DrewInWisconsin, Thought Leader (View Comment):
    There was a third whistleblower on the grassy knoll.

    That’s a good one!

    • #15
    • October 9, 2019, at 7:14 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Roosevelt Guck Member

    The only whistle the whistleblower is blowing is Adam Schiff’s.

    • #16
    • October 9, 2019, at 7:21 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. Jamie K. Wilson Member

    I don’t know. (He’s the third whistleblower.)

    • #17
    • October 9, 2019, at 9:16 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  18. MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chri… Coolidge

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    What does it say that the Dems are the only people who can hear these whistles? There’s a joke in there somewhere …

    It says that Republicand have put their fingers in their ears.

    As the defense of Trump always relies on the willfull ignorance of his supporters and their strained double think. Forever reaching new depth of ignorance and hypocrisy.

    Easy, big fella. Easy.

    • #18
    • October 10, 2019, at 3:55 AM PDT
    • 1 like