>but if you're snitchin you might as well go all the way
>(shoutout to Tekashi 69!!!)

On the real though, I just read the link below over at WaPo and they mention that the whistleblower has mentioned more than one event AND the whistleblower didn't even have 1st hand knowledge of the call with the Ukrainian president. So there might be some other dirt out there that will provide a clearer picture when combined with what we know now.

***

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/25/takeaways-transcript-trumps-call-with-ukraines-president/

The first reason is that the whistleblower complaint involves multiple events and no single communication, as the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, testified last week. This is the highest-profile known event involving Trump and Ukraine, but there are many unknowns. We don’t even know what other events might be involved, much less what transpired in them.

Indeed, the fact that Trump released the call and not the whistleblower complaint (at least yet, though that could be coming) suggests this piece of evidence is perceived as being better for him than the rest. It could also be a trial balloon to see how the call is received before making a decision on the full complaint.

The second is that, as Philip Bump wrote Tuesday, the whistleblower reportedly wasn’t even privy to the call; they heard about it secondhand. And Atkinson reviewed their complaint and determined it to be both credible — suggesting there was some corroboration — and of “urgent concern.” So both of them seemed to be relying upon plenty besides this call.

Also to keep in mind, the rough transcript is not a verbatim account of the conversation. It is a White House memorandum that is based on the notes and memories of officials in the room. A disclaimer in the rough transcript warns that a number of factors “can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent.”