Couple of Thoughts on...the Whistleblower!

Michael Loftus

-- Support The Loftus Party via our Patreon account! --

OK, so I did a video on this a couple days ago but there are some things that just don't fit in a short comedy clip. So in no particular order here's some stuff that's bugging me.

Nancy Pelosi said she read the report and that it was public domain. Was it? Or did she just grab a copy off Schiff's desk?

Speaking of Schiff: There are reports of someone from his office going over to the Ukraine in August. Why? What's up with that?

Now for the whole "whistleblower" secondhand story thing. Someone changed the wording in the "Whistleblower" Handbook to make it abundantly clear that secondhand accounts (rumors) were OK. They did that in August...right before the whistleblower started the blowing. That seems really nutty. Like, "Let's get our ducks all lined up so it looks good," type shit.

I'm less than thrilled with how many times I've typed the word whistleblower. It's like typing school. Not a fan.

Back to serious questions.

Why wasn't the person with firsthand knowledge the whistleblower? If you see/hear something SO jacked up...why not report it yourself? Why involve a third party? Unless the original witness wants to gather more intel? This is another fishy thing to me. Does "concerned citizen" not want their cover blown so they can keep gathering intel? Kinda weird.

No Quid Pro Quo. IF there was a REAL crime wouldn't Pelosi put impeachment to a vote? Get the process started? This is starting to feel more and more like a fishing expedition to me. Some committee will now subpoena ALL of Trump's phone calls and HOPE to find a REAL crime. It's Mueller Investigation all over again.

In summary? This thing is looking more and more like bullshit with every passing day.

Your thoughts?

-- Follow The Loftus Party on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook! --