Great. So why not let the investigation proceed? It may end up as 7 dry holes, like Benghazi, but at least we'll know.Oldbear83 said:Booray said:Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.Oldbear83 said:
Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"
In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.
You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.
And the facts we know up to now,
Quash continues to prove he is a Democrat at heart.quash said:Great. So why not let the investigation proceed? It may end up as 7 dry holes, like Benghazi, but at least we'll know.Oldbear83 said:Booray said:Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.Oldbear83 said:
Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"
In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.
You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.
And the facts we know up to now,
Out in the non-binary world people can support an investigation just because it might provide more info. No partisanship involved.Oldbear83 said:Quash continues to prove he is a Democrat at heart.quash said:Great. So why not let the investigation proceed? It may end up as 7 dry holes, like Benghazi, but at least we'll know.Oldbear83 said:Booray said:Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.Oldbear83 said:
Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"
In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.
You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.
And the facts we know up to now,
But sure, the deeper you dig, the deeper in the hole you will end up.
Quash, you are one of the most binary people on this board. Nice try, but a swing and a miss for you there.quash said:Out in the non-binary world people can support an investigation just because it might provide more info. No partisanship involved.Oldbear83 said:Quash continues to prove he is a Democrat at heart.quash said:Great. So why not let the investigation proceed? It may end up as 7 dry holes, like Benghazi, but at least we'll know.Oldbear83 said:Booray said:Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.Oldbear83 said:
Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"
In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.
You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.
And the facts we know up to now,
But sure, the deeper you dig, the deeper in the hole you will end up.
You see what you are.Oldbear83 said:Quash, you are one of the most binary people on this board. Nice try, but a swing and a miss for you there.quash said:Out in the non-binary world people can support an investigation just because it might provide more info. No partisanship involved.Oldbear83 said:Quash continues to prove he is a Democrat at heart.quash said:Great. So why not let the investigation proceed? It may end up as 7 dry holes, like Benghazi, but at least we'll know.Oldbear83 said:Booray said:Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.Oldbear83 said:
Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"
In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.
You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.
And the facts we know up to now,
But sure, the deeper you dig, the deeper in the hole you will end up.
The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
My thoughts are his own text messages make it clear Trump's meeting with Ukraine was conditioned on its president agreeing to make up a story about the Democratic Party and Ukranian collusion regarding the 2016 election. Putin wants to be freed of sanctions and he's making Trump lean on Ukraine to take the fall:Doc Holliday said:
Amb Volker was VERY clear yesterday in his testimony that it is UNTRUE Pres Trump demanded a quid pro quo of Pres Zelensky that US aid was contingent upon an investigation by Ukraine into the Bidens.
Thoughts?
Not true, but i sense your inner 7th-grader wanted so much to post that.quash said:You see what you are.Oldbear83 said:Quash, you are one of the most binary people on this board. Nice try, but a swing and a miss for you there.quash said:Out in the non-binary world people can support an investigation just because it might provide more info. No partisanship involved.Oldbear83 said:Quash continues to prove he is a Democrat at heart.quash said:Great. So why not let the investigation proceed? It may end up as 7 dry holes, like Benghazi, but at least we'll know.Oldbear83 said:Booray said:Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.Oldbear83 said:
Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"
In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.
You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.
And the facts we know up to now,
But sure, the deeper you dig, the deeper in the hole you will end up.
If so, then show where the law specifies hearsay is acceptable for legal evidence.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
That's not the truth. It's spin.riflebear said:
Dems who want the truth and not spin and half truths should watch Laura Ingraham on Fox. She has former DOJ & Special counsel experts who have been unbiased the last 3 years give real Facts on law and what the media is trying to do and how unethical all of this 'impeachment' talk is. They absolutely torched all the talking heads on MSNBC & CNN who are literally misleading their 100 followers. Pathetic & sad that 95% of the media gets away w/ pushing lies & #fakenews to mislead their viewers. That is literally the only way they can get out the vote is to continue to make liberals think Trump is the 2nd coming of Satan and is burning down the White House - when the exact opposite is true about the Dems in Congress NOT doing their job.
What is? Please explain. I dare you to watch tonight's show then come back and tell me how they are wrong. They lay out real facts - no spin at all.cinque said:That's not the truth. It's spin.riflebear said:
Dems who want the truth and not spin and half truths should watch Laura Ingraham on Fox. She has former DOJ & Special counsel experts who have been unbiased the last 3 years give real Facts on law and what the media is trying to do and how unethical all of this 'impeachment' talk is. They absolutely torched all the talking heads on MSNBC & CNN who are literally misleading their 100 followers. Pathetic & sad that 95% of the media gets away w/ pushing lies & #fakenews to mislead their viewers. That is literally the only way they can get out the vote is to continue to make liberals think Trump is the 2nd coming of Satan and is burning down the White House - when the exact opposite is true about the Dems in Congress NOT doing their job.
But we won't know. Not if the Republicans don't get subpoena power.quash said:Great. So why not let the investigation proceed? It may end up as 7 dry holes, like Benghazi, but at least we'll know.Oldbear83 said:Booray said:Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.Oldbear83 said:
Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"
In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.
You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.
And the facts we know up to now,
It doesn't, but hearsay is often acceptable evidence.Oldbear83 said:If so, then show where the law specifies hearsay is acceptable for legal evidence.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
That would be a first, so you'd be famous.
Because there is something called executive privilege, and as we've seen if you give the Dems and inch they want EVERYTHING. Trump never should have released the transcript because you knew this would happen.quash said:Great. So why not let the investigation proceed? It may end up as 7 dry holes, like Benghazi, but at least we'll know.Oldbear83 said:Booray said:Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.Oldbear83 said:
Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"
In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.
You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.
And the facts we know up to now,
Sam Lowry said:It doesn't, but hearsay is often acceptable evidence.Oldbear83 said:If so, then show where the law specifies hearsay is acceptable for legal evidence.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
That would be a first, so you'd be famous.
I know basically how they work. My point is that the change was substantive and suspicious.GrowlTowel said:Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
Your point? Do you know how administrative rules are interpreted or implemented?
Thanks.
The rules of evidence don't apply here anyway. This is all about the criteria the IG uses to determine how credible the complaint is.GrowlTowel said:Sam Lowry said:It doesn't, but hearsay is often acceptable evidence.Oldbear83 said:If so, then show where the law specifies hearsay is acceptable for legal evidence.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
That would be a first, so you'd be famous.
Only when there is an exception.
I would laugh out loud if the Democrats tried to build an impeachment case on hearsay.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't, but hearsay is often acceptable evidence.Oldbear83 said:If so, then show where the law specifies hearsay is acceptable for legal evidence.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
That would be a first, so you'd be famous.
They won't do that, but it's laughable enough as it is. My only point is that the process has been suspicious and has raised questions about the credibility of the complaint and the people conducting the inquiry.Oldbear83 said:I would laugh out loud if the Democrats tried to build an impeachment case on hearsay.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't, but hearsay is often acceptable evidence.Oldbear83 said:If so, then show where the law specifies hearsay is acceptable for legal evidence.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
That would be a first, so you'd be famous.
The opinions of the unnamed "former DOJ & Special Counsel experts." How did they spin the flood of text messages that confirm the pressure being applied to Ukraine to play ball?riflebear said:What is? Please explain. I dare you to watch tonight's show then come back and tell me how they are wrong. They lay out real facts - no spin at all.cinque said:That's not the truth. It's spin.riflebear said:
Dems who want the truth and not spin and half truths should watch Laura Ingraham on Fox. She has former DOJ & Special counsel experts who have been unbiased the last 3 years give real Facts on law and what the media is trying to do and how unethical all of this 'impeachment' talk is. They absolutely torched all the talking heads on MSNBC & CNN who are literally misleading their 100 followers. Pathetic & sad that 95% of the media gets away w/ pushing lies & #fakenews to mislead their viewers. That is literally the only way they can get out the vote is to continue to make liberals think Trump is the 2nd coming of Satan and is burning down the White House - when the exact opposite is true about the Dems in Congress NOT doing their job.
More to the point, why won't the Democrats release ALL of that testimony? They only want selected items released.cinque said:The opinions of the unnamed "former DOJ & Special Counsel experts." How did they spin the flood of text messages that confirm the pressure being applied to Ukraine to play ball?riflebear said:What is? Please explain. I dare you to watch tonight's show then come back and tell me how they are wrong. They lay out real facts - no spin at all.cinque said:That's not the truth. It's spin.riflebear said:
Dems who want the truth and not spin and half truths should watch Laura Ingraham on Fox. She has former DOJ & Special counsel experts who have been unbiased the last 3 years give real Facts on law and what the media is trying to do and how unethical all of this 'impeachment' talk is. They absolutely torched all the talking heads on MSNBC & CNN who are literally misleading their 100 followers. Pathetic & sad that 95% of the media gets away w/ pushing lies & #fakenews to mislead their viewers. That is literally the only way they can get out the vote is to continue to make liberals think Trump is the 2nd coming of Satan and is burning down the White House - when the exact opposite is true about the Dems in Congress NOT doing their job.
Its laughable that Trumpkins would have the gall to question how Democrats handle investigative materials.Oldbear83 said:More to the point, why won't the Democrats release ALL of that testimony? They only want selected items released.cinque said:The opinions of the unnamed "former DOJ & Special Counsel experts." How did they spin the flood of text messages that confirm the pressure being applied to Ukraine to play ball?riflebear said:What is? Please explain. I dare you to watch tonight's show then come back and tell me how they are wrong. They lay out real facts - no spin at all.cinque said:That's not the truth. It's spin.riflebear said:
Dems who want the truth and not spin and half truths should watch Laura Ingraham on Fox. She has former DOJ & Special counsel experts who have been unbiased the last 3 years give real Facts on law and what the media is trying to do and how unethical all of this 'impeachment' talk is. They absolutely torched all the talking heads on MSNBC & CNN who are literally misleading their 100 followers. Pathetic & sad that 95% of the media gets away w/ pushing lies & #fakenews to mislead their viewers. That is literally the only way they can get out the vote is to continue to make liberals think Trump is the 2nd coming of Satan and is burning down the White House - when the exact opposite is true about the Dems in Congress NOT doing their job.
Hmmm.
You don't know that yet.Sam Lowry said:But we won't know. Not if the Republicans don't get subpoena power.quash said:Great. So why not let the investigation proceed? It may end up as 7 dry holes, like Benghazi, but at least we'll know.Oldbear83 said:Booray said:Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.Oldbear83 said:
Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"
In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.
You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.
And the facts we know up to now,
Fine. Let the inquiry finish. If you don't like how it was handled we can do six more.Sam Lowry said:They won't do that, but it's laughable enough as it is. My only point is that the process has been suspicious and has raised questions about the credibility of the complaint and the people conducting the inquiry.Oldbear83 said:I would laugh out loud if the Democrats tried to build an impeachment case on hearsay.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't, but hearsay is often acceptable evidence.Oldbear83 said:If so, then show where the law specifies hearsay is acceptable for legal evidence.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
That would be a first, so you'd be famous.
My point being that administrative agencies cannot change the law by adding elements in the name of policy. The form created a requirement that is nowhere to be found in the law.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
The rule was never at variance with the law. The law says that the IG is to determine the credibility of the complaint, and the rule established a way of doing so. It was not binding on the public and had little to do with the kind of conservative crusades you're talking about.Booray said:My point being that administrative agencies cannot change the law by adding elements in the name of policy. The form created a requirement that is nowhere to be found in the law.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
One of the most important fights conservative legal scholars and judges have fought over the last 25 years was to reduce the power of Washington bureaucrats by challenging administrative acts that expand or distort the law that congress passed. For the past three years we have heard non-stop about the "deep state" wielding power far beyond what our governmental system calls for.
In this instance we have an intelligence community created rule that varied the law congress passed. And when the agency changed the rule to comport with the law that congress passed, the "conservatives" go nuts because it hurts "their guy." That reaction is the exact opposite of the rule of law.
Add on to that what any sensible person already knows: the complaint that starts an investigation is not what acquits or convicts a person, it is the evidence that is gathered during the investigation. So what does it really matter if the whistle blower heard the phone call or had the phone call repeated to him.
All of which is proof positive that 99% of self-proclaimed conservatives have no idea what they are talking about.
Sam Lowry said:The rule was never at variance with the law. The law says that the IG is to determine the credibility of the complaint, and the rule established a way of doing so. It was not binding on the public and had little to do with the kind of conservative crusades you're talking about.Booray said:My point being that administrative agencies cannot change the law by adding elements in the name of policy. The form created a requirement that is nowhere to be found in the law.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
One of the most important fights conservative legal scholars and judges have fought over the last 25 years was to reduce the power of Washington bureaucrats by challenging administrative acts that expand or distort the law that congress passed. For the past three years we have heard non-stop about the "deep state" wielding power far beyond what our governmental system calls for.
In this instance we have an intelligence community created rule that varied the law congress passed. And when the agency changed the rule to comport with the law that congress passed, the "conservatives" go nuts because it hurts "their guy." That reaction is the exact opposite of the rule of law.
Add on to that what any sensible person already knows: the complaint that starts an investigation is not what acquits or convicts a person, it is the evidence that is gathered during the investigation. So what does it really matter if the whistle blower heard the phone call or had the phone call repeated to him.
All of which is proof positive that 99% of self-proclaimed conservatives have no idea what they are talking about.
It matters for a few reasons. Unlike Quash, evidently, I'm not a fan of endless investigations undertaken for the sake of harassment. If that's what this is, the public should know. We should also know the extent to which politicians in Congress are collaborating with the bureaucrats. Finally, the fact that the media are distorting the issue so severely is itself disturbing and worthy of note.
I think most everyone would agree that sex scandal and Elizabeth Warren just don't go together. Kinda like "Good Sex With Dr. Ruth". Ummmmm.......I don't think so.quash said:Sam Lowry said:The rule was never at variance with the law. The law says that the IG is to determine the credibility of the complaint, and the rule established a way of doing so. It was not binding on the public and had little to do with the kind of conservative crusades you're talking about.Booray said:My point being that administrative agencies cannot change the law by adding elements in the name of policy. The form created a requirement that is nowhere to be found in the law.Sam Lowry said:The law is the law. The rule was an administrative rule; that's what changed.Booray said:The "rule" is the law. The law is:Oldbear83 said:Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.quash said:Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.Oldbear83 said:The part where "required" is no longer required.quash said:Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.Oldbear83 said:The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.quash said: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".Oldbear83 said:May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.quash said:I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?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?
That's a big change.
That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.
The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.
The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:
receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.
One of the most important fights conservative legal scholars and judges have fought over the last 25 years was to reduce the power of Washington bureaucrats by challenging administrative acts that expand or distort the law that congress passed. For the past three years we have heard non-stop about the "deep state" wielding power far beyond what our governmental system calls for.
In this instance we have an intelligence community created rule that varied the law congress passed. And when the agency changed the rule to comport with the law that congress passed, the "conservatives" go nuts because it hurts "their guy." That reaction is the exact opposite of the rule of law.
Add on to that what any sensible person already knows: the complaint that starts an investigation is not what acquits or convicts a person, it is the evidence that is gathered during the investigation. So what does it really matter if the whistle blower heard the phone call or had the phone call repeated to him.
All of which is proof positive that 99% of self-proclaimed conservatives have no idea what they are talking about.
It matters for a few reasons. Unlike Quash, evidently, I'm not a fan of endless investigations undertaken for the sake of harassment. If that's what this is, the public should know. We should also know the extent to which politicians in Congress are collaborating with the bureaucrats. Finally, the fact that the media are distorting the issue so severely is itself disturbing and worthy of note.
The media ate doing their job, or maybe you missed the Newsweek takedown of the Trump supporters' attempt to link Sen. Warren in a sex scandal.
Only if you agree personally to pay for them.quash said:
Fine. Let the inquiry finish. If you don't like how it was handled we can do six more.
Oldbear83 said:Only if you agree personally to pay for them.quash said:
Fine. Let the inquiry finish. If you don't like how it was handled we can do six more.
