Impeachment: Trump's son tweets name of alleged whistleblower

SFC John Wade - To be clear, he hasn't refuted the events of the testimony and certainly not the text of the call. He hasn't said it never happened that I can see. What he said was not "quid pro quo", but saying that mantra doesn't change if the events say there was.

SFC John Wade - Basically we currently have the same level of evidence we have in most organized crime trails.

SPC Kevin Ford - I’m not trying to be snide or anything but what experience do you have with organized crime investigations to make that statement about having the same level of evidence in organized crime trials? Unless of course you are truly talking about organized crime trails.

PO1 H Gene Lawrence - I use that example because that is what it appears Trump operates like. But to be clear what we are talking about is circumstantial evidence which is commonly used in all manner of criminal trials.

See Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and Presidential Policy Directive 19

SFC Thomas Butler - How childish to down vote. The "whistleblower" is not afforded protection and is subject to US Code, when they report the violation to someone other than the IG 1st, as is this case. If this person took their case to the IG, instead of Congress, then they would have all the support of the Whistleblower Protection Act that you cited, and I would wholeheartedly be supporting keeping their name out of the press.

LT Brad McInnis - According to both the AP and Reuters; "The whistleblower filed the report with the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, as required under the Intelligence Community Whitsleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ272/html/PLAW-105publ272.hym).
And I don't think this is a case of me being childish, but instead is a case of you being very thin skinned.

It is. How can they be questioning when they are barred from going into the room where the proceedings are happening (remember the brouhaha when they broke in last week and were ejected) and no one is supposed to know who the guy is. He's a "secret" whistleblower, remember?

SPC Angela Burnham - Schiff won't even allow witnesses to answer some questions asked by Republicans. The process is corrupt. That's what happens when the (non-classified) meetings are held in secret.

1SG Steven Imerman - you've got that wrong. When the republicans pulled their stunt of forcing their way into the SCIF, there were already over 40 republican members of the 3 committees holding the hearings in there psrticipating, and getting equal time for questioning. Just read the released transcripts fron the closed hearings. Repubs asked all sorts of questions. I'm afraid you have been fed some right wing talking points about those hearings.

But the good news is although every single republican voted against the bill to authorize the public hearings they claimed they wanted so badly, the public hearings are starting next week. So you and the rest of America will get a chance to hear the witness themselves, should you want to.

The house republicans have no valid argument but to destroy all the fact-tellers. I wrote Sen. Pat Toomey (PA) about my concerns about POTUS and my 100% conviction that he should be removed from office. As I expected, he is "standing by his man, giving him all the love he can". I wrote the same content to House Representative, John Joyce (PA), and he is singing the same refrain. I have yet to hear from Sen. Bob Casey (PA).