The inspector general investigated this, and found that it was credible. In fact, the inspector general found evidence that it had occurred including the "promise" from Trump. Gulp.



52 U.S. Code 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(A) a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

Waco1947 said:

---

The inspector general investigated this, and found that it was credible. In fact, the inspector general found evidence that it had occurred including the "promise" from Trump. Gulp.



52 U.S. Code 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(A) a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

---

And there's a reason everyone at the DOJ agreed there was no case.

What about the Constitution?

Waco1947 said:

---

The inspector general investigated this, and found that it was credible. In fact, the inspector general found evidence that it had occurred including the "promise" from Trump. Gulp.



52 U.S. Code 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(A) a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

---

Asking Ukraine to continue an investigation they want to continue is not a violation of US law.

You need a better fiction to build your myths, Waco.

Waco1947 said:

---

The inspector general investigated this, and found that it was credible. In fact, the inspector general found evidence that it had occurred including the "promise" from Trump. Gulp.



52 U.S. Code 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(A) a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

---

Wrong. If you'd read the ICIG report, you'd have found that ICIG stated it was credible, BUT he did not request access to Trump's 7/25 call with the Ukrainian PM due to timing constraints required by law. Further on in the report, the ICIG specifically states that "records of the call will be relevant to any further investigation of this matter." In other words, the ICIG never fully investigated the WB factual credibility.

I'll break them down for you with the facts in parentheses.

WB claims:
- There were no issues "remotely sensitive" on the call. (Yes, there was a private discussion and opinions of other world leaders. That's "sensitive" material.)
- Claims Counselor to the State Department Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the call. (Proven false by CBS News on 9/26/19.)
- WH officials & lawyers specifically hid the Ukraine/Trump transcript in the NSC system because they "immediately" recognized the "gravity" of the call. (The call transcript wasn't hidden. It was purposely placed there due to 2 other calls with world leaders - Australia and Mexico - having been leaked. Access was limited due to leaks.)
- The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko" (Trump didn't mention Lutsenko, in fact he praised Shokin his predecessor fired for looking into Biden.)
- Ukrainian General Prosecutor Viktor Shokin "was not in fact investigating Burisma at the time of his removal". (Shokin swore in affidavit he WAS investigating Burisma.)

Facts are stubborn things.

Alternate Universe People hear me clear: you are defending a corrupt president.

Not true, even in all caps.

quash said:

---

Not true, even in all caps.

---

It is a question.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Alternate Universe People hear me clear: you are defending a corrupt president.

---

Alternate Universe Waco alert - yes, Joe Biden was and is corrupt, but he was never President and he will not be President.

---

Joe Biden is finished . He doesn't enjoy the special immunity of Obama or Clinton....as a result there is a very real chance Biden will face criminal prosecution.

quash said:

---

Not true, even in all caps.

---

Still true, even if Trump said it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Not true, even in all caps.

---

Still true, even if Trump said it.

---

Rules didn't change, the form did, to conform to the rules. Sad!

This is a crazy video.

Schiff read from and made up the content on the transcript as if it were true.

Pelosi: "he did not make it up".

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Not true, even in all caps.

---

Still true, even if Trump said it.

---

Rules didn't change, the form did, to conform to the rules. Sad!

---

Proof that first-hand knowledge was never the rule?

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Not true, even in all caps.

---

Still true, even if Trump said it.

---

Rules didn't change, the form did, to conform to the rules. Sad!

---

Not true.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Not true, even in all caps.

---

Still true, even if Trump said it.

---

Rules didn't change, the form did, to conform to the rules. Sad!

---

Not true.

---

Show me the rule change.

Edit for proof of my stance:
"As of May 24, 2018, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community's Urgent Concern disclosure form the form whistleblowers fill out offered three choices to describe how the whistleblower got his/her information: personal knowledge, heard from other people, and other sources.

The current form offers just two choices: personal knowledge or "heard about it from others." That form dates from August 2019.

The previous form also included a section under the subhead "First-hand information required."
"In order to find an urgent concern 'credible,' the IC IG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA (Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act) based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA."
The current reporting form lacks that section.
Based on these facts, Trump and other Republicans asserted that the rules for whistleblowers were changed "just before" the current complaint was filed. Actually, only the forms were changed. The rules stayed the same."

The fact that the forms changed EXACTLY at the right time is evidence of coordination.

Only a gullible government loving commie wouldn't question the timing.

Doc Holliday said:

---

The fact that the forms changed EXACTLY at the right time is evidence of coordination.

Only a gullible government loving commie wouldn't question the timing.

---

Coordination of what? The form change is barely, hardly, not even, substantive. If you want me to get outraged like you then show me why the change is a big deal.

A substantive change to the rules would be different, but as often as it is asserted I haven't seen it proved. The form changed.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The fact that the forms changed EXACTLY at the right time is evidence of coordination.

Only a gullible government loving commie wouldn't question the timing.

---

Coordination of what? The form change is barely, hardly, not even, substantive. If you want me to get outraged like you then show me why the change is a big deal.

A substantive change to the rules would be different, but as often as it is asserted I haven't seen it proved. The form changed.

---

There is ZERO first hand information.

ZERO.

You want me to be outraged as you are...give me first hand information.

If you're as smart as you claim to be...you would have read the transcript and called this BS from the moment it was released.

You're being conned by Adam Schiff. How low can you go?

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The fact that the forms changed EXACTLY at the right time is evidence of coordination.

Only a gullible government loving commie wouldn't question the timing.

---

Coordination of what? The form change is barely, hardly, not even, substantive. If you want me to get outraged like you then show me why the change is a big deal.

A substantive change to the rules would be different, but as often as it is asserted I haven't seen it proved. The form changed.

---

There is ZERO first hand information.

ZERO.

You want me to be outraged as you are...give me first hand information.

If you're as smart as you claim to be...you would have read the transcript and called this BS from the moment it was released.

You're being conned by Adam Schiff. How low can you go?

---

I don't make any claims to being smart, try just addressing my point.

The "transcript" is first hand information. The investigation will interview those with first hand information. That is non-zero.

And, as always, let's wait for the end of the investigation.

Interesting. I checked the link quash provided regarding the definition of "urgent concern" as used by the ICWPA Form 401. It reads:

"* A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive Order, or deficiency related to the funding, administrations or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters
* A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity
* An action, including personnel action, described in 5 U.S.C. 2302 (a)(2)(A) of Title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under section 7(c) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, in response to an employee reporting an urgent concern"

The activity described in the complaint does not meet the criteria described in this form.

https://www.scribd.com/document/427767481/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

Oldbear83 said:

---

Interesting. I checked the link quash provided regarding the definition of "urgent concern" as used by the ICWPA Form 401. It reads:

"* A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive Order, or deficiency related to the funding, administrations or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters
* A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity
* An action, including personnel action, described in 5 U.S.C. 2302 (a)(2)(A) of Title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under section 7(c) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, in response to an employee reporting an urgent concern"

The activity described in the complaint does not meet the criteria described in this form.

https://www.scribd.com/document/427767481/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

---

I agree that the complaint doesn't rate "urgent concern". Still rates investigation.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Interesting. I checked the link quash provided regarding the definition of "urgent concern" as used by the ICWPA Form 401. It reads:

"* A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive Order, or deficiency related to the funding, administrations or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters
* A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity
* An action, including personnel action, described in 5 U.S.C. 2302 (a)(2)(A) of Title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under section 7(c) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, in response to an employee reporting an urgent concern"

The activity described in the complaint does not meet the criteria described in this form.

https://www.scribd.com/document/427767481/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

---

I agree that the complaint doesn't rate "urgent concern". Still rates investigation.

---

And it was investigated...go read the ICIG's shltty work product.

It's past time for the ICIG to revise the initial "credible" finding in light of not requesting or even seeing Trump's call transcript then stating specifically in the report that "records of the call will be relevant to any further investigation of this matter."

Really shltty work product....

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The fact that the forms changed EXACTLY at the right time is evidence of coordination.

Only a gullible government loving commie wouldn't question the timing.

---

Coordination of what? The form change is barely, hardly, not even, substantive. If you want me to get outraged like you then show me why the change is a big deal.

A substantive change to the rules would be different, but as often as it is asserted I haven't seen it proved. The form changed.

---

There is ZERO first hand information.

ZERO.

You want me to be outraged as you are...give me first hand information.

If you're as smart as you claim to be...you would have read the transcript and called this BS from the moment it was released.

You're being conned by Adam Schiff. How low can you go?

---

I don't make any claims to being smart, try just addressing my point.

The "transcript" is first hand information. The investigation will interview those with first hand information. That is non-zero.

And, as always, let's wait for the end of the investigation.

---

Earth to quash...it has ALREADY been investigated.

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
In order to find an urgent concern "credible", the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG). Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
In order to find an urgent concern "credible", the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG). Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
In order to find an urgent concern "credible", the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG). Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
In order to find an urgent concern "credible", the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG). Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
In order to find an urgent concern "credible", the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG). Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
In order to find an urgent concern "credible", the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG). Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
In order to find an urgent concern "credible", the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG). Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
In order to find an urgent concern "credible", the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG). Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.