Serious question - since we can read the entire transcript of the phone call, what is the significance of there being a second whistleblower?
Why does a second person coming forward (even if they listened firsthand to the call) matter?
What light can they shed beyond what I can see from reading the actual phone call?
They did not release the full transcript.
Non-partisan answer please wrote:
Serious question - since we can read the entire transcript of the phone call, what is the significance of there being a second whistleblower?
Why does a second person coming forward (even if they listened firsthand to the call) matter?
What light can they shed beyond what I can see from reading the actual phone call?
It's possible he can testify as to actions taken by the diplomats that support Trump deliberately withholding the military aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden. The main out for supporters of Trump is that there was no direct quid pro quo in the phone call memorandum. It's also possible that he saw a full transcript of the call that does include a direct quid pro quo.
Non-partisan answer please wrote:
Serious question - since we can read the entire transcript of the phone call, what is the significance of there being a second whistleblower?
Why does a second person coming forward (even if they listened firsthand to the call) matter?
What light can they shed beyond what I can see from reading the actual phone call?
It’s kinda like the doofuses calling it as coverup when the transcript of the call was released
bells & whistles wrote:
They did not release the full transcript.
Ditto this. It would be surprising if there was a full transcript of the conversation. Since Nixon, Presidents have been loath to tape their conversations, so any transcript would be based on notes. When a President talks to a foreign leader, the translator and others take notes. These are collected and compiled into a "Memorandum of Conversation" summarizing the conversation.
There are two things the second whistleblower could add: 1) Direct Knowledge: The first whistleblower did not have direct knowledge of the call; he was worried based on what other people told him about the call. The second whistleblower has more direct knowledge. This will make it harder to attack him as giving "hearsay" evidence. 2) New Information: It appears the second whistleblower may have new information about the call.
The 2nd whistleblower has first hand knowledge of the Ukraine call. They were in on the call.
And there are a couple of more whistleblowers to come, after the one about Trump attempting to tamper with his IRS presidential tax return audits.
Non-partisan answer please wrote:
Serious question - since we can read the entire transcript of the phone call ...
You think the Sharpie version of the transcript is the entire call? LOL . . . . . . .
Why is this thread allowed to stay? Mods watching TV I guess...
gofigure wrote:
Why is this thread allowed to stay? Mods watching TV I guess...
What’s wrong with the thread?
They don’t allow political discussion? wrote:
gofigure wrote:
Why is this thread allowed to stay? Mods watching TV I guess...
What’s wrong with the thread?
The discussion is too polite, and too focused on facts.