[R_Kangel]

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described."

.... Note ..... If you read his statement ..... He says that he was not a direct witness to .... "Most" ... Of the events .... Which indicates he was witness to at least one of the events .....

[philman_36]

If you read his statement...

I have read his statement...letter to Burr and Schitt for brains

He says that he was not a direct witness to .... "Most" ... Of the events .... Which indicates he was witness to at least one of the events .....

Show me where he states that he was a direct witness to anything...PLEASE!
I don't want "indications" I want evidence.

Or is that only contained in the classified appendix which starts at page 8 that the public can't see?

[philman_36]

Perhaps this is where your confusion is coming from...

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

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. WOW! That's "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct"...made by other unnamed people.
Yeah, bring that to trial!

I can understand your confusion. What I don't understand is why you're trying to further confuse others.

[philman_36]

Which indicates he was witness to at least one of the events .....

"direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct"

Perhaps you need to read that again in contrast to your previous statement without so much clutter.