ABC has some “BREAKING” news that for us … the attorney representing the initial whistleblower says he is now representing a second whistleblower “with first-hand knowledge of events.”
BREAKING: Attorney representing whistleblower who sounded the alarm on Pres. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine tells @ABC News he is now representing a second whistleblower who has first-hand knowledge of events. https://t.co/BTUj2i9ocm
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) October 6, 2019
Quick question, why do we need a second whistleblower with “first-hand knowledge of events” when we already have a transcript?
BREAKING: We already have the transcript—the only firsthand account—which shows no quid pro quo and zero impeachable offenses by @realDonaldTrump.
Democrats are desperate. https://t.co/xFQeGaMFhs
— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) October 6, 2019
I mean haven’t we known about this for awhile? Wasn’t the president tweeting about it last night? Do we need a second whistleblower to tell us about a call for which we have a transcript? https://t.co/5oOeW3sU6Q
— Cody Derespina (@CDerespina) October 6, 2019
One cannot be a “whistleblower” after the transcript was released.
That’s merely a sore losing whiner
— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) October 6, 2019
How many "whistleblowers" about a call that WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF do you need?
The call doesnt show anything impeachable, so Democrats have to spin it with theatrics.
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) October 6, 2019
So now we are assembling a panel of whistleblowers to tell us what’s on a transcript that has already been released?
Sounds about right.