Reports: Sondland To Testify Trump Told Him To Write Text Denying Quid Pro Quo

Reports: Sondland To Testify Trump Told Him To Write Text Denying Quid Pro Quo

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sondland-testify-trump-told-write-text-quid-quo

This keeps getting worse and worse for Trump. You know those super bad texts that pretty much confirm all of this? Well yeah, as we all already knew, Sondland's final copy paste CYA reply was probably dictated by Trump.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Gordon Sondland reportedly plans to testify that President Donald Trump ordered him to send the infamous text denying that there was any quid pro quo between Trump and the Ukrainian government over military aid.

The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday night that Sondland will distance himself from Trump’s claims that there was no quid pro quo when he withheld congressionally approved military aid from Ukraine while pushing the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on 2020 candidate Joe Biden.

No wonder they are trying to block Sondland from testifying. Just like they tried and failed to stop the Ambassador from testifying last week (her statements were very damning).

Does he has that in writing too?

Anyone that thinks trump wasn't involved is very very naïve.

I'll believe it when I see it, but if so, yeah, this is bad.

It'll be something to see if people continually turn against Trump. Images of the movie Downfall are running through my head, Trump in his bunker throwing tantrums, blaming everyone else in a rage, claiming them traitors, surrounded by Mitch and numerous sycophants, spewing his delusions and conspiracies, as his world crumbles all around him.

Someone should do a deep fake of that film and put Trump's face over Hitler's and using AI to do Trump's voice. I'd pay to see that.

@MirkoS77: "I'll believe it when I see it, but if so, yeah, this is bad."

That's where I'm at with this as well. It will be awesome if it happens, but I won't believe it's going to happen until after the fact.

Unless he has that in writing or can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, this is not that bad for Trump.

But here we go again.

No. It will be bad for Trump just like the last 2 Sworn Testimonies were very very bad for Trump.

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton was so alarmed by a White House–linked effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats, he told aide Fiona Hill to alert the National Security Council's chief lawyer, Hill told House impeachment investigators in her 10-hour deposition on Monday, The New York Times reports. Specifically, Bolton told Hill, the top NSC staffer on Russia and Eurasian affairs, to notify White House lawyers that Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal lawyer, and White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney were running a rogue operation with legal implications, Hill reportedly testified.

This is fucking bad.

Lol brill :)

Aaaaand another one.

Top State Dept official warned of Trump pressure campaign against Ukraine: report

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who on Tuesday was testifying as part of House Democrats' impeachment inquiry, reportedly raised concerns earlier this year about what he described as pressure from President Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate Trump's political opponents.

Every single hearing so far has been incredibly damning.

It seems more and more like Trump can't handle a fair fight.

Well, that is your opinion and please don´t like to other peoples opinions like they are facts.

Until we hear from republican senators that they will vote to remove, this is no more serious than all the other "wolf cries" you guys on the left have come with.

That's a poor measure, The GOP Senate probably won't remove him no matter what. Kind of like some brain-dead cult. What I mean is this is very bad in terms of impeachment, which becomes very likely every day. Support for it grows every day, as does for the investigation, as does for the thought that what Trump did was very wrong. I'm very happy most Americans agree with my opinion on what Trump did was wrong and/or want him gone.

But yes, I'm glad you have come to terms with the likely-hood of his Impeachment due to the fact he can no longer deny the Ukraine Scandal. Only debate if it is truly worth his removal.

Thank goodness you joined rest of the GOP with the new goal post move of "bu bu removal?". It is good we can admit this scandal is real and he will be impeached for it. Now we are on to the 3rd goal post move of "is it worthy of removal?" So I was right for the first 2 parts, and I'll probably be right about part 3 which is Senate not removing him.

What do you mean to come to terms? considering the democratic lead were you ever in doubt that it would happen? they would impeach him on the basis of a half-eaten ham sandwich.

So that does not mean anything.

So not sure if you actually think I have somehow agreed with you that he is "guilty" because of course, I haven't.

As to the polls, well again polls is polls so let´s see what happens during the general election.

GOP and far right cultist Goal post move timeline:

1. At first: "No one will be for impeachment, Dems wont even try it!" Nope. It now has majority support due to a constant stream of evidence.

2. Then: "Well they will, but he and his team didn't actually pressure Biden investigations by a foreign government. You got nothing!" Nope. They did.

3. Then: "Well he did, but he won't be impeached." Nope. He probably will. Too much evidence.

4. Now: "Well our team the GOP will not remove him, this will end in the Cult Senate!" Yeah, you're right. Party over country.

So far the argument has been lost by the right 3 times. All they can now argue is their die hard team won't oust him. As more evidence comes out this will be politically damaging, however.

Then why didn't they? Heh. No they wouldn't, it would be too politically damaging.

They are impeaching him on this because public support is significantly higher for this. Otherwise they would NEVER do it. TOO harmful. Since you know, what he did this time was actually pretty fucking bad, most Americans agree, and the evidence is pretty undeniable at this point.

To say it didn't happen at this point means you are either lying or are not too bright. Hell he is on Camera doing it again. It happened, and he will be impeached for it and most Americans will want it. The question is will be removed. Likely not, and 100% due to Senate being a cult.

So you are saying he did not ask for foreign governments to investigate Biden lol? Every single testimony is a lie so far and the text messages are a lie and the transcript is a lie? Cool opinions bro. I'm going to go with the overwhelming facts. He did what we are discussing, and he is going to be impeached over it. You can lie all you want. It happened.

The new question is will the GOP Cult Senate find it grounds for removal and officially "guilty". The answer is likely no.

Anyway most Americans want him either impeached and/or impeached or removed. Looks like all that evidence broke through and continues to make it worse for him. Not good for 2020.

First, I never said anything about polls, considering that you can make a poll say that Nickleback is the greatest band alive, And there has never been a question about the house democrats opinion.

As to the rest, well until you have something more serious and more evidence, no republican senate will conflict Trump, so good luck there.

And what arguments have been lost? you are again reading what you want into the "evidence" And the only time it´s lost is if Trump actually gets convicted by the senate.

And they are impeaching him because that´s what they have promised their voters for the last 4 years, so no matter what we were going to see it, still there is a chance Pelosi will come to reason and see that any impeachment will only hinder their election campaign and most likely gear up the republicans against her. Or much more likely they will save it for after 2020 just in case they can secure the senate in 2020 and Trump wins.

As to what Trump did, I do not see him ask for anything, he talked about corruption nothing else.

Then provide citation that ALL the pollsters I am discussing are false, or concede if no link is provided. Q-Anon Bullshit. The pollsters we are talking for Impeachment about are very accurate.

Most of America wants him impeached and/or removed. Deal with it.

Then provide citation refuting the testimonies, text messages, transcript, or WB Report - if no link is given you auto concede.This is serious, and it has extreme solid evidence. Which is why public perception completely swapped.

The GOP Cult doesn't care.

The evidence literally says what we are saying in direct and plain English. Hell there is even him doing it on Camera.

Polling shows this will highly likely not happen. Why would she stop impeachment now that it has a majority American support?

My prediction is an extremely high chance for impeachment due to both public support and a near daily deliverance of highly damning evidence.

Yawn. We've been through something just like this before..

Remember years of me saying CIA, FBI, DHS, NSA > Random guy on internet? And how I ended up right about russian meddling and you ended up dead wrong?

Well I'm doing it again. I trust the ICIG, Acting DNI, FEC Chair, WB Report, multiple life long career officials with their sworn testimonies, and the directly written English text message/transcripts over Random guy on the internet. Lmao.

Ambassador breaks with Trump, testifying the President directed diplomats to work with Giuliani on Ukraine

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/politics/sondland-deposition-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

Sondland basically flips, to save his own hide.

US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland was directed by President Donald Trump to work with Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine, he plans to tell Congress Thursday, and was left with a choice: Abandon efforts to bolster a key strategic alliance or work to satisfy the demands of the President's personal lawyer.

Sondland plans to say he wasn't aware until "much later" that Giuliani's agenda might have included an effort to "prompt the Ukrainians" to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter and to involve the Ukrainians in the President's campaign, according to his opening statement, which was obtained by CNN.Sondland's revealing testimony is a clear break with Trump over Giuliani — he said he was "disappointed" that Trump wouldn't commit to a meeting sought by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky until they spoke with Giuliani, who was pursuing an investigation into Biden, a potential political rival in Trump's reelection campaign. And the ambassador's testimony showcases how Trump put on hold an effort to strengthen relations with Ukraine until top US officials were in contact with his personal attorney."Based on the President's direction, we were faced with a choice: We could abandon the goal of a White House meeting for President Zelensky, which we all believed was crucial to strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian ties and furthering long-held U.S. foreign policy goals in the region; or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to Mr. Giuliani to address the President's concerns," Sondland will testify.

So that's gonna be like 5 corroborating sworn testimonies now lol. On top of text messages confirming their thoughts, and a transcript confirm this all as well. Oh and the credible WB Report which states all of this.

Deep state conspiracy

Probably the most damning testimony yet. Also lol they ALL corroborate each other btw.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/gordon-sondland-to-break-from-trump-in-impeachment-testimony-000288

Sondland told congressional investigators he did not realize “until much later” that Giuliani was seeking a Ukrainian-led investigation into Biden and his son — even though Trump himself and Giuliani had been calling publicly for such probes for weeks. He said any effort to solicit foreign assistance in an American election — an allegation central to the House’s impeachment inquiry — “would be wrong,” adding that he was “disappointed by” the May 23 meeting with Trump because he believed a Trump-Zelensky meeting “should be scheduled promptly and without any pre-conditions.”

He also said military assistance to Ukraine “should not have been delayed for any reason” — a rebuke of the president’s decision to put a hold on those funds earlier this year — but added that Trump repeatedly told him there was “no quid pro quo” involving the aid or an investigation of Trump’s political rivals.

Mulvaney just admitted "Quid Pro Quo" with Ukraine in exchange for "investigation" into 2016 DNC election, lol. Claims that they do this all the time.

https://youtu.be/5brFcfOXjVo

Well, duh.

I said exactly the same thing when I first saw it in a previous thread - the denial message was written hours later, and was clearly worried about what the other recipient was putting in writing.

'News to us': DOJ distances itself from Mulvaney claim that Ukraine aid was tied to investigation

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-kurt-volker-gordon-sondland-testimony-2019-10-17/

ROFL!

By investigating corruption, you mean JUST investigation your top 2020 contender on fake blogger conspiracy theories. Jesus they are so corrupt.

We chose the latter path, which seemed to all of us – Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and myself – to be the better alternative. But I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President's 2020 reelection campaign.

From Sondlands opening statement.

You know what a good lawyer would say there. "Assume facts, not in evidence" and "witness is stating an opinion"

Unless he can back this up with actual evidence other than "other peoples opinions" then this is nothing.

It's not opinions. Guess what a jury would do with multiple witness testimony? Convict.

Not really when they are still opinions and backed up by witnesses and does not establish a pattern. , Not forgetting that none of these testimonies would have been allowed and stricken for the record.

And yes it´s the opinion you can literally see him say that himself.

Yes multiple people saying the same thing leads to convictions. It's not even a gray area. You want court case analogies...…..well it's a conviction. Deal with it.

Again facts not in evidence, Does not matter what people even multiple people think, when what they "think" is opinions and hearsay.

Especially the "whistleblower" is bad since he either had legal expertise or had a lawyer draw up and word his complaint in a way that would require further scrutiny and all consist of "I heard several other people say this or feel this"

Nah. You're flat out wrong.

Sworn testimony that is corroborated by 5 other sworn testimonies by highly esteemed officials is something. This is simple textbook stuff you're getting wrong.

You are 100% correct in terms of legal understanding. Multiple sworn corroborating testimonies by witnesses (especially ones with beyond exceptional standing) has resulted in criminal convictions countless times.

But It's not even just that. They have text messages confirming that is what both men were thinking/doing. They have a transcripts. They have Mick on tape. They have multiple CREDIBLE Whistle blower reports, which all of this evidence conveniently shows up AGAIN. Hmm...as if it's all true or something.

Hmm...who should I trust regarding the Whistelblower,

Michael K. Atkinson

Inspector General of the Intelligence Community

Prior to his Senate confirmation, Mr. Atkinson worked for the U.S. Department of Justice for over fifteen years. He worked as a Trial Attorney in DOJ’s Criminal Division, Fraud Section, from 2002 through 2006. He then served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 2006 through 2016, where he was the Acting Chief and Deputy Chief of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section. In 2012, he was awarded the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service for his work on a significant public corruption case. Thereafter, he served in DOJ’s National Security Division as the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Asset Protection and as Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General.

VS.

Jacanuk

Gamespot Poster

You are so wrong here it hurts.

You do not have 1 event that is backed up by 6 "opinions" you have 1 opinion where "5" others say either they heard others say similar things or they think the same thing about other events. If you even read an actual textbook you would know that opinions do not equal credible witness testimonies unless it´s back up by actual factual evidence.

Also, the whistleblower is not credible at all, he does not have any first-hand knowledge at all, he heard some people share an opinion of certain events that he feels may indicate something.

Come on Zaryia you can´t be this relaxed on facts.

It's really kind of odd that not a single person from Trump's administration has stepped forward to discredit the whistle blower. It's almost as if nobody is able or willing to do that.

No one needs to discredit someone who has zero first-hand knowledge and clearly states in his own complaints that he bases most on other peoples opinion and feelings

Also, there is the caveat that the transcript has been public for awhile now.

Bwahahahahahah I can't believe you're REALLY doing this,

Michael K. Atkinson

Inspector General of the Intelligence Community

Prior to his Senate confirmation, Mr. Atkinson worked for the U.S. Department of Justice for over fifteen years. He worked as a Trial Attorney in DOJ’s Criminal Division, Fraud Section, from 2002 through 2006. He then served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 2006 through 2016, where he was the Acting Chief and Deputy Chief of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section. In 2012, he was awarded the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service for his work on a significant public corruption case. Thereafter, he served in DOJ’s National Security Division as the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Asset Protection and as Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General.

VS.

Jacanuk

Gamespot Poster

Member since 2011 • 19177 Posts

Says the guys whose posts read like Q-Anon on this particular subject. Where did you get your law degree from? You appear to always be wrong on these issues as a matter of objective fact through various legal dictionary sites. I can't find any site/textbook that states 6 corroborating sworn witness testimonies would not count as evidence. In fact there are several instances where multiple corroborating sworn witness testimony was enough to convict individuals. Are you sure you are citing US Law and not some other country? Maybe Russian law?

The transcript only confirms what the whistleblower was saying, though. I would expect someone like Mulvaney to try to discredit all of this, but he came out and said it was, in fact, a quid pro quo, and that we all should just get over it. It was yet another confirmation. Maybe Trump should start paying his bills so he can get better legal advice.

A "transcript" (not a transcript a notetaker memo) that confirmed what the whistleblower said.

You can bitch all you want about "first hand" or the increasingly stupid "opinions" defense, but the reality is, of evidence gathered so far, everything the whistleblower stated in their report has been confirmed. None of the claims have been demonstrated as incorrect, and no one is willing to bring such evidence forward to exonerate the president.

It would be easy to doubt the whistleblower, since he claims to not have first hand information, but Trump and his staff make that disbelief all but impossible because somebody who does have first hand information, be it Trump, Mulvaney, or Giuliani, gets in front of a camera and confirms what he says daily.

The ICIG had to release a SECOND letter AGAIN saying it was credible because of the type of Q-Anon nonsense Jacanuk is peddling right now.

After the testimonies, transcripts, texts, and screw ups like Mick Mulvaney, we now know the ICIG was 100% correct to call it credible.

You have absolutely nothing that comes out and says "here is the smoking gun" also you keep referring to different events like they cooperate each other

Let´s take a look at the complaint

I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another.

So here he "feels" something and states that other peoples opinions are correct because he feels it, In a court if he ever took the stand he would have to be entered as an expert and prove that he is an expert if this testimony would ever be allowed.

Let´s take another bit

Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:

Here we again have an opinion since nothing in the call transcript actually confirms their assessment. Not to mention Zelenskyy was not as we know aware of the aid being withheld.

As to William Taylor, he again states an opinion and not anything that is backed up by facts.

""Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting conditioned on investigations?" Taylor asked."Call me," Sondland replied."

But we will never agree here so answer this pretty simple question, why do you think Pelosi is not going to call a vote? if everything, as you say, was so clear? no one would be able to dispute it right? meaning a unanimous senate would vote "removal" right.

And don´t answer with "They are waiting for more evidence", because that is irrelevant when you claim that they already have enough.

Actually no the transcript does not confirm anything the complaint said. What the transcript does is confirm that Trump mentioned corruption which is no different than Biden´s call.

What the transcript does it allow for the left to see it one way and the right to see it another way It´s ambiguous

Hell trump did was he was accused of on national tv. How much more evidence is needed.

The complaint was secondhand "Hearsay" riddled with feelings and opinions and even goes to determine the validity of other peoples feelings.

But answer the same question, if this is so clear, why has there not been a vote? They have gathered according to you on the left enough clear "evidence"

Moving the goal post to "smoking gun".

We said there is evidence, and the testimonies factually count as evidence (among other things). We are correct.

It's okay to admit you lost that round. Lets move on,

The 6 sworn testimonies, text messages, transcripts, and videos of guys like Mick which corroborate the report would be allowed. The report itself would be referenced.

There is nothing so far that refutes any portion of the report. Only the opposite.

The ICIG found it credible for good reason. His letters are superior citation than your opinions. I will post them:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/read-icig-report-dni-whistleblower-complaint/index.html

Multiple sworn testimonies corroborate those assessments. As do text messages, transcripts, and on video admittance.

Again, the ICIG (who is > you) made it clear the WB Report was credible. And we now know why.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/read-icig-report-dni-whistleblower-complaint/index.html

We agree there is evidence. What we won't agree on is how compelling it is. IMO it is incredibly strong, as it only corroborates the WB Report and none of it refutes it. People have been convicted with less, but those weren't exactly Impeachments.

As for the WB Report itself, The ICIG > Jacanuk. It deemed is credible until you show otherwise. I would like to know why you think the ICIG is wrong and you HAVE to provide equally as credible citation/sourcing.

Because they have quite a bit more testimonies lined up. You need all you can get when it comes to impeachment which is also a lot about public opinion. With a GOP Senate they're gonna have to stack the shit out of evidence to make them look really really to the public bad when they vote to not remove.

Are you new to this whole thing?

Why did you put "feels" in quotes when the word is absent from what you quoted? The quote said he "found" the accounts to be credible, and as an inspector general, he should be an expert at making that sort of finding.

That is a good point, actually. Zelensky probably wasn't even aware that $400 million, 10% of their entire defense budget, was being withheld. Makes perfect sense.

Why would Pelosi call a vote now when she could wait until we get into primary season? She doesn't want to give the republicans time to run Romney. Plus, the United States senate is by no means an impartial jury. Despite the mountain of evidence, removal from office is unlikely. It is much smarter to continue the investigation until all witnesses have testified. That way Donald's guilt is as clear to the American people as it is going to get. It needs to be politically damaging for a senator to keep Trump in office, and in most red states, I don't think that is the case yet.

Post citation of the 6 "sworn independent testimonies" who are all backed up by actual factual evidence.

Post those Text messages, Transcripts and video (Do not attempt to pull the Mulvanny video, that is ambiguous and he took it back so it does not confirm anything"

ICIG found it worth investigation that is not the same as finding it 100% credible. They have to investigate.

What more evidence? you mean they are waiting for actual evidence because have nothing so far? well that just confirms what i have said all along and what they time magazine "lawyers" said.

You keep spewing your feelings and opinions bullshit, but they've all been proven right. Sworn testimony to congress is not an "opinion or feeling," everything there is, by law, the truth. Hard evidence in the form of prior conversations and memorandums, granted directly or indirectly, is not an opinion or feeling, those conversations happened. Circumstantial evidence including proven meetings, withheld funds, convenient resignations, arrests of related individuals, those are all facts. The only "opinions" are if what's known so far is enough to impeach, but at this point you're basically trying to argue gravity is just feelings and we can't be sure we're stuck to the ground.

And the House doesn't need to vote to start an inquiry. There are no House rules for it and nowhere in the constitution is a vote required. This is a lazy republican stall tactic to try and grant themselves talking points in the news and obfuscate the process.

Just cut the gaslighting already.

Before I say anything, here is a nice compiled list (by career legal experts, from a very a unbiased source) of the corroborated parts of the WB Report.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

Can you refute any of it? (With citation, not your fake law).

Sure thing, don't mind if I leave out your fake made up qualifiers:

• Fiona Hill: https://www.axios.com/ex-trump-adviser-fiona-hill-ukraine-testimony-eadad08d-4db7-4f8a-9c2d-693d2eb198b3.html
• Marie Yavonovich: https://www.lawfareblog.com/former-ambassador-marie-yovanovitchs-opening-statement-congress
• Gordon Sondland: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/full-text-gordon-sondland-opening-statement-impeachment-049982
• Kurt Volker: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/4/20899025/kurt-volker-testimony-transcript-impeachment-texts
• Mike McKinley: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/16/770643839/ex-pompeo-aide-is-latest-state-department-official-to-talk-in-impeachment-inquir

There's actually 5, thought there would have been a 6 by now. Not a big deal though.

Sure thing, don't mind if I leave out your fake Q-Anon qualifiers:

• Transcript: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
• Text messages: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html
• Video: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/18/mick-mulvaneys-walkback-doesnt-pass-laugh-test-heres-timeline/

Four to seven more incredibly damning sworn witness testimonies, which further confirm the WB Report like the last few. As if the transcripts and videos didn't already confirm it all.

That's not what he said, lmao.

As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations. The Complainant followed the law in filing the urgent concern complaint, and the ICIG followed the law in transmitting the information to the Acting Director of National Intelligence on August 26, 2019.