Search Posts

So in the lead up to the impeachment of President Trump, the standard was that it had to be first-hand information. And then right before he happened to go through this impeachment process, the standard changed to being able to use second-hand information, even if it were unreliable and deemed unreliable by the inspector general. Why was that standard changed? This is something that, again, there's further lies being told in the transcripts of this former inspector general Atkinson when he went and testified before the House Intelligence Committee, where he was directly asked this question that you're asking here now. And he's making claims, oh, well, the law required me to do it. That's complete nonsense. The law did not require him to do it. The responsibility is with the inspector general to deem whether or not a complaint is credible and whether or not it is urgent. How do you find a complaint to be credible when there is zero evidence provided and there is zero firsthand knowledge provided, not only by the whistleblower, by any witness in this case, and when the inspector general himself did not even request to see the documents that these individuals are referencing in their false accusations. And so it was obviously, to me, part of this plot to change the standard, which the inspector general did from requiring that there be either evidence or firsthand knowledge presented in order to determine whether or not a complaint is credible to merely allowing for hearsay and nothing else.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.