Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
- Aug 5, 2010
- 42,407
- 7,739
BREAKING: Intel Community Secretly Changed the Whistle-Blower Rules to Allow the Trump-Ukraine Complaint Just Days Before It Was Filed
This shit stinks to high heaven. I have withheld making such outlandish statements as in the title until now, but it is QUITE CLEAR there are operatives behind the scenes doing their best to usurp the will of the American voter.
They literally changed the rules protecting whistle blowers to create an avenue for this latest attack to come forward without the ability to challenge it.
Snip....
the intel community secretly changed the rules governing whistle-blowers, including amending the required form, in order to allow 2nd hand information to suffice.The second hand information is accurate; Trump attempted to extort a foreign leader into providing damaging information against a potential political opponent in exchange for military aid.the intel community secretly changed the rules governing whistle-blowers, including amending the required form, in order to allow 2nd hand information to suffice.
The COUP happened three years ago when Trump became POTUS after losing the popular vote by more than 8 million ballots.
Whistleblower complaint, annotated
"In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well."
Trump lost by 3 million and that difference was all CA. He won the popular in the other 49 and the electoral. Why spread more propaganda?
He "won" by fewer than 80,000 votes spread across three states.
It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.
FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California