quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

He got that part wrong. So?

---

That's a pretty big thing to get wrong!

He is using 2nd and 3rd hand info.

There was also no quid pro quo as well.

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.

---

IC or WH staff leaked to WB. But did not WB leak to press?

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.

---

IC or WH staff leaked to WB. But did not WB leak to press?

---

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

[url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/][/url]https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/


Don't you think that's odd?

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

He got that part wrong. So?

---

That's a pretty big thing to get wrong!

He is using 2nd and 3rd hand info.

There was also no quid pro quo as well.

---

"Reciprocity" is a thing. "Favor" is a thing. "Nice country you got here, hate to see anything happen to it."

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

He got that part wrong. So?

---

That's a pretty big thing to get wrong!

He is using 2nd and 3rd hand info.

There was also no quid pro quo as well.

---

"Reciprocity" is a thing. "Favor" is a thing. "Nice country you got here, hate to see anything happen to it."

---

That's not a quid pro quo. Not even close.

And of course you have to add in your own words to make it sound bad. Just like Adam Schiff.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.

---

IC or WH staff leaked to WB. But did not WB leak to press?

---

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

[url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/][/url]https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/


Don't you think that's odd?

---

No. Sounds like an affidavit for a search warrant, maybe better. A WB complaint has to be evaluated, that is what Maguire testified about when he wasn't being taunted by the clowns. The credibility of first hand information is higher; second hand is lower but not excluded.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

He got that part wrong. So?

---

That's a pretty big thing to get wrong!

He is using 2nd and 3rd hand info.

There was also no quid pro quo as well.

---

"Reciprocity" is a thing. "Favor" is a thing. "Nice country you got here, hate to see anything happen to it."

---

That's not a quid pro quo. Not even close.

And of course you have to add in your own words to make it sound bad. Just like Adam Schiff.

---

Man, you spike on the thirty but by golly if it involves Trump you want five replay cameras on the goal line.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

He got that part wrong. So?

---

That's a pretty big thing to get wrong!

He is using 2nd and 3rd hand info.

There was also no quid pro quo as well.

---

"Reciprocity" is a thing. "Favor" is a thing. "Nice country you got here, hate to see anything happen to it."

---

That's not a quid pro quo. Not even close.

And of course you have to add in your own words to make it sound bad. Just like Adam Schiff.

---

Man, you spike on the thirty but by golly if it involves Trump you want five replay cameras on the goal line.

---

He talked about investigating Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election which has been documented.

That's what you and democrats are defining as quid pro quo.

You know for a fact that you're stretching this all the way to supporting removal from office. Shame on you.

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.

---

IC or WH staff leaked to WB. But did not WB leak to press?

---

Maguire's testimony was:

First, I want to stress I believe the whistle-blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout," he said. "I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and followed the law."

The whistle blower turned the complaint in, it was deemed credible and urgent by the IG and forwarded to the DNI. By statute DNI is supposed to forward to congressional oversight. Instead of doing so he sought guidance from the DOG and the Office of Legal Counsel because the particular matter involved discussions between heads of state. OLC and DOJ said it did not have to be produced because those discussion invoked executive privilege.

While there are some circumstances in which the DNI will not hand over the complaint itself, he has to notify congress that he is not doing so. Maguire followed the rules.

In summary, congressional oversight always knows that a credible and urgent whistle blower complaint has been filed. There is no need to leak that fact. No one knew what was in the complaint until the White House authorized its release, so the substance of the complaint was not linked.

As per usual, DJT is up in arms about something his own people supposedly did and trying to smear a public servant based on the confusion that creates.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

You do realize this is the first time in history of a complaint having 2nd and 3rd hand info?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

---

First, I did not agree or disagree with you.

Second, there is no way you or I can know that.

Third, I imagine plenty of forms have a mixture of types of information.

Fourth, the line drawing exercise is difficult. For example, WB reads a document that contains damning information. The document is technically hearsay. Does WB have direct knowledge.

Fifth, you are avoiding the question. Why does it matter to you whether the WB had direct or second-hand info? If investigated that info will turn out to be accurate, inaccurate or a mix. Eyewitnesses testify incorrectly everyday in Court. hearsay turns out to be true all the time,. Isn't what actually happened, rather than the provenance of the original report, what matters?

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

---

First, I did not agree or disagree with you.

Second, there is no way you or I can know that.

Third, I imagine plenty of forms have a mixture of types of information.

Fourth, the line drawing exercise is difficult. For example, WB reads a document that contains damning information. The document is technically hearsay. Does WB have direct knowledge.

Fifth, you are avoiding the question. Why does it matter to you whether the WB had direct or second-hand info? If investigated that info will turn out to be accurate, inaccurate or a mix. Eyewitnesses testify incorrectly everyday in Court. hearsay turns out to be true all the time,. Isn't what actually happened, rather than the provenance of the original report, what matters?

---

What happened has been proven with the declassification of the actual transcript. The transcript proves the whistleblower wrong. The burden is on the whistleblower who has already lied.

Here is a tweet by Adam Schiff.

It is 100% false that Trump "pressured Ukraine" to "manufacture" dirt on Biden.

The transcript does not show this.

Why is he making that claim? If he's lying...do you think it's ridiculous that he's running the impeachment show?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

---

First, I did not agree or disagree with you.

Second, there is no way you or I can know that.

Third, I imagine plenty of forms have a mixture of types of information.

Fourth, the line drawing exercise is difficult. For example, WB reads a document that contains damning information. The document is technically hearsay. Does WB have direct knowledge.

Fifth, you are avoiding the question. Why does it matter to you whether the WB had direct or second-hand info? If investigated that info will turn out to be accurate, inaccurate or a mix. Eyewitnesses testify incorrectly everyday in Court. hearsay turns out to be true all the time,. Isn't what actually happened, rather than the provenance of the original report, what matters?

---

What happened has been proven with the declassification of the actual transcript. The transcript proves the whistleblower wrong. The burden is on the whistleblower who has already lied.

---

People get convicted of extortion all the time without making explicit demands.

Seeing this episode as a "shakedown" is reasonable based on what we already know, which is why the White House tried to hide the transcript.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

---

First, I did not agree or disagree with you.

Second, there is no way you or I can know that.

Third, I imagine plenty of forms have a mixture of types of information.

Fourth, the line drawing exercise is difficult. For example, WB reads a document that contains damning information. The document is technically hearsay. Does WB have direct knowledge.

Fifth, you are avoiding the question. Why does it matter to you whether the WB had direct or second-hand info? If investigated that info will turn out to be accurate, inaccurate or a mix. Eyewitnesses testify incorrectly everyday in Court. hearsay turns out to be true all the time,. Isn't what actually happened, rather than the provenance of the original report, what matters?

---

What happened has been proven with the declassification of the actual transcript. The transcript proves the whistleblower wrong. The burden is on the whistleblower who has already lied.

---

People get convicted of extortion all the time without making explicit demands.

Seeing this episode as a "shakedown" is reasonable based on what we already know, which is why the White House tried to hide the transcript.

---

It may be why they tried to hide the transcript. It may also be that they saw the material as privileged for legitimate reasons. In the end they did release it, which is more than Trump's predecessors would likely have done. And they released the complaint at the behest of a Republican Senate.

If Trump is covering up, he's not very experienced at it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

---

First, I did not agree or disagree with you.

Second, there is no way you or I can know that.

Third, I imagine plenty of forms have a mixture of types of information.

Fourth, the line drawing exercise is difficult. For example, WB reads a document that contains damning information. The document is technically hearsay. Does WB have direct knowledge.

Fifth, you are avoiding the question. Why does it matter to you whether the WB had direct or second-hand info? If investigated that info will turn out to be accurate, inaccurate or a mix. Eyewitnesses testify incorrectly everyday in Court. hearsay turns out to be true all the time,. Isn't what actually happened, rather than the provenance of the original report, what matters?

---

What happened has been proven with the declassification of the actual transcript. The transcript proves the whistleblower wrong. The burden is on the whistleblower who has already lied.

---

People get convicted of extortion all the time without making explicit demands.

Seeing this episode as a "shakedown" is reasonable based on what we already know, which is why the White House tried to hide the transcript.

---

It may be why they tried to hide the transcript. It may also be that they saw the material as privileged for legitimate reasons. In the end they did release it, which is more than Trump's predecessors would likely have done. And they released the complaint at the behest of a Republican Senate.

If Trump is covering up, he's not very experienced at it.

---

I would have understood not releasing the transcript to the public; I think it sets Ana's precedent. But transferring it to the super-duper secret server has nothing to do with national security and everyone knows it.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

---

First, I did not agree or disagree with you.

Second, there is no way you or I can know that.

Third, I imagine plenty of forms have a mixture of types of information.

Fourth, the line drawing exercise is difficult. For example, WB reads a document that contains damning information. The document is technically hearsay. Does WB have direct knowledge.

Fifth, you are avoiding the question. Why does it matter to you whether the WB had direct or second-hand info? If investigated that info will turn out to be accurate, inaccurate or a mix. Eyewitnesses testify incorrectly everyday in Court. hearsay turns out to be true all the time,. Isn't what actually happened, rather than the provenance of the original report, what matters?

---

What happened has been proven with the declassification of the actual transcript. The transcript proves the whistleblower wrong. The burden is on the whistleblower who has already lied.

---

People get convicted of extortion all the time without making explicit demands.

Seeing this episode as a "shakedown" is reasonable based on what we already know, which is why the White House tried to hide the transcript.

---

It may be why they tried to hide the transcript. It may also be that they saw the material as privileged for legitimate reasons. In the end they did release it, which is more than Trump's predecessors would likely have done. And they released the complaint at the behest of a Republican Senate.

If Trump is covering up, he's not very experienced at it.

---

I would have understood not releasing the transcript to the public; I think it sets Ana's precedent. But transferring it to the super-duper secret server has nothing to do with national security and everyone knows it.

---

I'm not up on the secret server aspect, but executive privilege doesn't just apply to the public. It applies to the other branches of government as well. And it's emphatically not limited to national security concerns. It's about promoting candor and shielding the executive from undue concern for appearances.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

It was not a ****ing leak. Leaks don't go through protocol you idiot.

He literally followed the law. He went straight through the process. The DNI literally said everything he did was lawful and right.

You are a ****ing lunatic.

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

---

Especially a hearsay account of such call. There are more than a few lawyers in Congress, and even politicians understand that hearsay is worthless.

Personally, I still think it's just more Donkey Kabuki. An actual impeachment will go against voters' wishes, and will force a trial where Democrats would actually have to produce real evidence. Far more comfortable for the Democrats to continue endless hearings while hinting at terrible possibilities they cannot be forced to prove are true.

---

THE SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF THE CALL CONFIRMED THE SUPPOSED "HERESAY."

---

No, it did not. Several contradictions were found, such as no actual quid pro quo, no threats, and one person alleged to have been on the call was not even in the building.

Seriously, do you not even bother to read the documents, Brooks?

---

I did! Did you?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

---

You're confused. You should read it...not read into it.

Huge difference.

---

I figured out what happened. He read the 'Schiff's Notes' of the conversation.

Oldbear83 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

There's no evidence of a cover-up (both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public), no evidence of quid pro quo (multiple reports state that the Ukrainians didn't even know military aid was being withheld). So what exactly is the theory of impeachment?

---

Let's wait and see what they put in the articles of impeachment. I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be about a phone call to Ukraine.

---

Especially a hearsay account of such call. There are more than a few lawyers in Congress, and even politicians understand that hearsay is worthless.

Personally, I still think it's just more Donkey Kabuki. An actual impeachment will go against voters' wishes, and will force a trial where Democrats would actually have to produce real evidence. Far more comfortable for the Democrats to continue endless hearings while hinting at terrible possibilities they cannot be forced to prove are true.

---

THE SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF THE CALL CONFIRMED THE SUPPOSED "HERESAY."

---

No, it did not. Several contradictions were found, such as no actual quid pro quo, no threats, and one person alleged to have been on the call was not even in the building.

Seriously, do you not even bother to read the documents, Brooks?

---

I did! Did you?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

---

You're confused. You should read it...not read into it.

Huge difference.

---

I figured out what happened. He read the 'Schiff's Notes' of the conversation.

---

Just a liddle different.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

It was not a ****ing leak. Leaks don't go through protocol you idiot.

He literally followed the law. He went straight through the process. The DNI literally said everything he did was lawful and right.

You are a ****ing lunatic.

---

The whistleblower protocol mentioned applies to intelligence agencies and operations and personnel.

the text reads

" an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the complaint or information"

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-112/pdf/STATUTE-112-Pg2396.pdf

It does not qualify an intelligence agent to eavesdrop on the President, nor report hearsay claims.

Therefore, "leaker" would be the appropriate term in this matter.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

It was not a ****ing leak. Leaks don't go through protocol you idiot.

He literally followed the law. He went straight through the process. The DNI literally said everything he did was lawful and right.

You are a ****ing lunatic.

---

The whistleblower protocol mentioned applies to intelligence agencies and operations and personnel.

the text reads

" an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the complaint or information"

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-112/pdf/STATUTE-112-Pg2396.pdf

It does not qualify an intelligence agent to eavesdrop on the President, nor report hearsay claims.

Therefore, "leaker" would be the appropriate term in this matter.

---

So you know more about this than the DNI?

That's what you're saying, right now?

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.

---

IC or WH staff leaked to WB. But did not WB leak to press?

---

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

[url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/][/url]https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/


Don't you think that's odd?

---

No. Sounds like an affidavit for a search warrant, maybe better. A WB complaint has to be evaluated, that is what Maguire testified about when he wasn't being taunted by the clowns. The credibility of first hand information is higher; second hand is lower but not excluded.

---

But Maguire's job, as he testified to and repeated numerous times, was not to assess or investigate the credibility (Webster definition of credible) of the specifics within the complaint, but he was to insure the complaint fit or did not fit the protocol to forward to House and Senate committees. He stated several times that it was the FBI's job to investigate the details of the complaint as to whether or not true or false.

My understanding is that it fit the DNI's definition of "credible" only because the person filing it was under the employ of a DNI agency not because of the specific details of the complaint.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

---

First, I did not agree or disagree with you.

Second, there is no way you or I can know that.

Third, I imagine plenty of forms have a mixture of types of information.

Fourth, the line drawing exercise is difficult. For example, WB reads a document that contains damning information. The document is technically hearsay. Does WB have direct knowledge.

Fifth, you are avoiding the question. Why does it matter to you whether the WB had direct or second-hand info? If investigated that info will turn out to be accurate, inaccurate or a mix. Eyewitnesses testify incorrectly everyday in Court. hearsay turns out to be true all the time,. Isn't what actually happened, rather than the provenance of the original report, what matters?

---

What happened has been proven with the declassification of the actual transcript. The transcript proves the whistleblower wrong. The burden is on the whistleblower who has already lied.

---

People get convicted of extortion all the time without making explicit demands.

Seeing this episode as a "shakedown" is reasonable based on what we already know, which is why the White House tried to hide the transcript.

---

It may be why they tried to hide the transcript. It may also be that they saw the material as privileged for legitimate reasons. In the end they did release it, which is more than Trump's predecessors would likely have done. And they released the complaint at the behest of a Republican Senate.

If Trump is covering up, he's not very experienced at it.

---

I would have understood not releasing the transcript to the public; I think it sets Ana's precedent. But transferring it to the super-duper secret server has nothing to do with national security and everyone knows it.

---

It does go to national security if 2 other conversations with leaders (like Australia and Mexico were) are leaked. It goes to privileged conversations that leaders may have. Moving to a different server limited the number of people with access.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

It was not a ****ing leak. Leaks don't go through protocol you idiot.

He literally followed the law. He went straight through the process. The DNI literally said everything he did was lawful and right.

You are a ****ing lunatic.

---

It was a leak because the WB notes specifically in his complaint:
- "I was not a direct witness to most of the events described."
- "The information provided herein was relayed to me"
- "Based on my understanding"
- "officials told me"

Sorry, but there was a leak because the WB had zero firsthand knowledge. Did the WB follow protocol? Yes. That does NOT mean, as evidenced by language of the complaint, that there was no leak.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.

---

IC or WH staff leaked to WB. But did not WB leak to press?

---

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

[url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/][/url]https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/


Don't you think that's odd?

---

Who changed this? Insanity in the deep state swamp

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

He leaked it.

---

Get it straight. The leaks (spies) the admin and some GOP are complaining about are the intelligence officials or White House staff who told the whistle blower the info. The whistle blower did not leak anything. Everyone agrees that he or she followed the proper protocol.

---

IC or WH staff leaked to WB. But did not WB leak to press?

---

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

[url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/][/url]https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/


Don't you think that's odd?

---

This is what we've known all along. There is no way Comey Clapper Brennan McCabe and others were acting alone. Their minions are so deep inside these intelligence agencies and very loyal to the previous administration they will stop at nothing to not be exposed by the IG and Barr and others.

Congrats Dems - you got out in front of the story and are pushing the narrative in the press - you win again (in the short term) hopefully they will be exposed very soon. Unfortunately now they will use Barr going after them as retaliation for Impeachment hearings - just wait.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

There's no whistleblower in the Ukraine story. The New York Times already outed this guy as a disgruntled CIA person. He simply leaks a bunch of stuff, has his report written with the assistance of staffers on the Democrat side on the House Intelligence Committee, and calls himself a 'whistleblower' for the protections that term offers.

---

He had info that indicated an abuse of authority. He reported it. That's right in the language of the act.

---

It was a leak.

Care to explain how his report claimed that Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Zelensky call which is in fact not true?

---

It was not a ****ing leak. Leaks don't go through protocol you idiot.

He literally followed the law. He went straight through the process. The DNI literally said everything he did was lawful and right.

You are a ****ing lunatic.

---

The whistleblower protocol mentioned applies to intelligence agencies and operations and personnel.

the text reads

" an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the complaint or information"

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-112/pdf/STATUTE-112-Pg2396.pdf

It does not qualify an intelligence agent to eavesdrop on the President, nor report hearsay claims.

Therefore, "leaker" would be the appropriate term in this matter.

---

So you know more about this than the DNI?

That's what you're saying, right now?

---

well, that comment tells me you weren't listening to what the man said today ...

More bad news for dt - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kurt-volker-trumps-envoy-for-ukraine-resigns/ar-AAHWYwV?li=BBnb7Kz

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Am I the only person here who understands that this is not a whistleblower?

He cannot legally be viewed as whistleblower--& does not have protection under whistleblower laws--b/c he was not eyewitness to any corruption or fraud & has no firsthand info. His complaint is based on 2nd- & 3rd-hand information

---

You may be the only person who thinks that. 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.

---

Oh that's right. they just changed the law in AUGUST!

The rules for becoming a "Whistleblower" were changed to permit second-hand gossip in august 2019. The "Whistleblower," with his second-hand gossip, filed the complaint in august 2019.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

---

The changed form implements clear statutory language as explained above. I thought you were a fan of applying the law as written?

Also, DJT has been president for almost three years. "They: (as in "they changed the law" (sic-they didn't change the law, they changed the form)) is him.

---

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

They did this in August. Perfect timing.

---

Yes. You apparently missed the point. The previous form requiring first-hand knowledge was a form, not a law. As already explained in detail and with reference to the clear statutory language the previous form imposed a requirement that the law does not impose.

Should we apply the law as written or should we allow the intelligence community to make up its own laws?

---

Then why was it on the form prior to August?

---

There are millions of government forms. Thousands of them have mistakes. Because...Humans.

What does it matter? POTUS has already confirmed about 75% of what is in the complaint. The dispute here doesn't get resolved by whether the whistle blower heard the phone call first hand or was told about it; the dispute is about POTUS' intentions in making the statements on the call.

---

Oh bull*****

There has never been a WB form submitted with 2nd and 3rd hand info. Ever.

This is the first.

---

First, I did not agree or disagree with you.

Second, there is no way you or I can know that.

Third, I imagine plenty of forms have a mixture of types of information.

Fourth, the line drawing exercise is difficult. For example, WB reads a document that contains damning information. The document is technically hearsay. Does WB have direct knowledge.

Fifth, you are avoiding the question. Why does it matter to you whether the WB had direct or second-hand info? If investigated that info will turn out to be accurate, inaccurate or a mix. Eyewitnesses testify incorrectly everyday in Court. hearsay turns out to be true all the time,. Isn't what actually happened, rather than the provenance of the original report, what matters?

---

What happened has been proven with the declassification of the actual transcript. The transcript proves the whistleblower wrong. The burden is on the whistleblower who has already lied.

---

People get convicted of extortion all the time without making explicit demands.

Seeing this episode as a "shakedown" is reasonable based on what we already know, which is why the White House tried to hide the transcript.

---

It may be why they tried to hide the transcript. It may also be that they saw the material as privileged for legitimate reasons. In the end they did release it, which is more than Trump's predecessors would likely have done. And they released the complaint at the behest of a Republican Senate.

If Trump is covering up, he's not very experienced at it.

---

I would have understood not releasing the transcript to the public; I think it sets Ana's precedent. But transferring it to the super-duper secret server has nothing to do with national security and everyone knows it.

---

I'm not up on the secret server aspect, but executive privilege doesn't just apply to the public. It applies to the other branches of government as well. And it's emphatically not limited to national security concerns. It's about promoting candor and shielding the executive from undue concern for appearances.

---

It was the server storage I was talking about when I said the White House hid the document. The White House has confirmed that they shifted the transcript storage from where conversations of this type are normally stored to a server that generally holds only "code word" documents, meaning the type of document that can reveal assets and strategies.

There is no reason for this document or apparently several like it to be on the code word server. Other than the fact that their discovery would cause political damage to POTUS. Simply put, the adults in the room knew POTUS had screwed up and they tried to hide it. By misusing important government resources.

While the residents of this particular fantasyland turn mental gymnastics to deflect, minimize and rationalize POTUS' mistake, his own people know he screwed the pooch here.

I will give him thisI doubt POTUS had anything to do with the server placement. He is sincere when he looks at the transcript and says he sees a perfect phone call. He believed with his whole heart that anything he does is perfect. Thus, the difference between Trump and Nixon, Clinton, Johnson and several other crooks who have held the office is that Trump doesn't even understand that he is on the wrong side of the law.