Reply
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
284
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

284 Views
Message 81 of 188

There will be naysayers that try to shoot holes in this. I want to add my two cents to simplify this. 

This is not a democrat/ republican thing. This isn’t a Trump thing. 

This is a trust thing. 

So all of you Trump haters are not going to get anywhere bashing Trump to support your point of view. 

I will tell you that it is amazing how people see things different. 

From where I sit it seems like I can see all the fake stuff. I see the organized agenda of George Soros. How every politician and media outlet say the same key words. Right now it’s “National Security”. I can go back and find all the different key words they have used to fit their narrative. 

Why do I notice this stuff? I thought about this. I think I have a disagreable nature. I don’t like being told what to do or what to think. I want to see it for myself because I don’t want to be wrong. Plus several times in my life when I have been in trouble I was asked why did you do that? My answer was so and so said it was ok or everyone else is doing it. As you know not good answers. So I think other people that don’t like to follow the mob see things the same as me. 

Now the other half of people. I don’t understand. Maybe you are the type of people easily lead. More suseptible to be hypnotized. Because it doesn’t make sense to condemn Trump for womanizing but giving everyone else such as Bill Clinton and professional athletes a pass. It doesn’t make sense to accuse Trump of being corrupt when it is so blatently obvious that the Clintons are corrupt. It doesn’t make sense that Biden is on video directly connecting his bribe gets a pass and that you are trying to read between the lines to accuse Trump of implying bribery.

All of these things are hypocritical. 

From what I see is people supported Trump because they wanted something different. They wanted a bull in the china shop. They were sick of lip service.

Now they are supporting him because there is no alternative. The democrats have been bullying everyone. People don’t like bullies. They don’t see Trump as a bully. They see him as a fighter and right now he is fighting the bullies all by himself while everyone hides because they don’t want to be attacked. God forbid if someone wears a red MAGA hat. 

You know what that is when you attack someone for supporting Trump or because they have a MAGA hat? Fascism! Silencing someone’s voice. Attacking their freedoms. Fascism! 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
284
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
285
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

285 Views
Message 82 of 188

Americans Have Every Reason To Be Suspicious Of The Whistleblower Complaint

 
The emerging Ukraine narrative is eerily similar to the Russian collusion hoax. Dismissing questions about its origins isn’t going to cut it.

 

BY:  John Daniel-Davidson

 

For two years, our political and media elites assured us that a wide-ranging independent counsel investigation of Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election would reveal that the Trump campaign, and indeed Trump himself, colluded with Moscow to steal the election. The Robert Mueller probe, we were told, would prove it.

 

Not only did that turn out to be false, but as the investigation dragged on it became clear that the origins of the probe were highly suspicious, implicating senior intelligence officials in the Obama administration and raising questions about whether the whole thing was a political hit job from the start.

 

Now those same political and media elites are assuring us that Trump has broken the law and must be removed from office—not for colluding with Russia, but for pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. We’re told that Trump threatened to withhold military aid, and that he improperly involved Attorney General William Barr in this extortion scheme, along with his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

 

We’re supposed to accept that this is what happened, that what the anti-Trump whistleblower complaint describes is confirmed by the unredacted and publicly released transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky. We’re not supposed to question the veracity of the whistleblower’s complaint or the purity of the whistleblower’s motives. And we’re definitely not supposed to question why the standards for submitting whistleblower complaints were changed just last month to allow complaints based on secondhand information to be deemed credible.

 

In other words, we’re not supposed to question whether this whole thing has been a political hit job from the start.

 

Well, forgive us if we pause. Just like the Clinton campaign-funded Steele dossier that launched the Russia probe, the Ukraine complaint is based entirely on hearsay and contains blatant falsehoods and misstatements of fact.

 

In fact, everything about the Ukraine affair thus far has the same stink as the origins of the Russia probe—the suspicious actions of unelected intelligence community bureaucrats, the hysterical proclamations of congressional Democrats, the uniform efforts of the media to distort every aspect of the story in the service of an impeachment narrative. Sound familiar?

The Complaint Origins Are Suspicious

 

Democrats and the news media are treating the Ukraine affair like a Watergate-sized crisis just as they treated the Russia probe before it came to a conclusion.

 

Now, just like with the Mueller investigation, legitimate questions are emerging about how all this got started. As far as we know, the whistleblower complaint contains no direct, firsthand information, which until last month was a requirement for a complaint to be considered credible. My colleague Sean Davis first reportedthat the intelligence community quietly gutted that requirement at some point between May 2018 and August 2019.

 

Then on Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) released a statement that confirmed Davis’ reporting, and admitted that its complaint form and policies regarding evidentiary requirements had been altered in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed in August. In addition, the ICIG statement revealed the whistleblower had used the old complaint form, which explicitly stated that firsthand knowledge was required in order for a complaint to be considered credible.

This is important because the federal statue governing whistleblower complaints in the intelligence community gives the ICIG broad authority to determine whether a complaint is credible, as well as authority to determine what kind of evidence is required to meet that threshold. The ICIG has 14 days after receiving a complaint to determine whether it’s credible, and if so the complaint is passed along to the director of national intelligence (DNI).

 

In order for the complaint to be considered an “urgent concern,” and be passed along to Congress, it has to meet three criteria: it must be found credible, it must be related to an intelligence activity, and the complaint must be against an employee or contractor of the intelligence community.

 

In this case, the DNI and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel found the complaint was not an “urgent concern” as defined by federal statute (because the complaint wasn’t related to an intelligence activity and because the president is not an employee of the intelligence community) and therefore need not be shared with relevant congressional committees. The ICIG ignored that determination and notified Congress even though the complaint didn’t meet the statutory definition of an “urgent concern.”

 

The ICIG’s statement notably doesn’t say when the complaint form was changed to reflect new evidentiary standards that allow complaints with only secondhand information to be deemed credible. As Davis notes, knowing this timeline “is essential to determining whether the ICIG changed its own policies and procedures to justify forwarding to Congress a complaint that under the previous standard may not have been deemed credible.”

 

As it is, the fact that ICIG developed new forms that don’t require firsthand information suggests that it was done as an after-the-fact justification of how the anti-Trump whistleblower’s complaint was handled.

 

Meanwhile, the mainstream media have been trying to distract attention from the questions surrounding these revelations by pretending either that such details don’t matter or that anyone raising questions about them is doing so in bad faith. The Daily Beast ran an article this week dismissing Davis’ reporting as a “hoax story,” even while admitting that the form was indeed changed and that the new form does indeed alter the type of evidence needed for the ICIG to judge a complaint credible.

The Media Is Dismissing All This As a Conspiracy Theory

 

At the same time, the media is treating the Trump administration’s investigation into the dubious origins of the Mueller probe as a conspiracy theory. On Monday, the Washington Post reported that Attorney General William Barr has been holding private meetings overseas with foreign officials as part of that effort, which Trump himself disclosed back in May.

 

Vox was quick on the draw with an explainer headlined, “The right-wing conspiracy theories behind Trump and Barr’s outreach to foreign leaders.” A report from the Washington Post noted, “Current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials expressed frustration and alarm Monday that the head of the Justice Department was taking such a direct role in reexamining what they view as conspiracy theories and baseless allegations of misconduct.”

 

But here’s the thing: hand-waving all this away as a conspiracy theory isn’t going to work. The American people have every reason to be suspicious of the emerging Ukraine narrative, and simply appealing to the authority of current and former intelligence officials, many of whom lied to Congress and illegally leaked to the press, isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.

 

Many Americans no longer trust those people because they have proven untrustworthy. After the fiasco of the Russia investigation, they’re going to need more than assurances from our political and media elites that this time, really, honestly, Trump is guilty of an impeachable offense.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

After watching Adam Schiff lie over and over in front of the camera for the past 3 years is like the story of the little boy that cried wolf over and over.  

 

Result:  Schiff has NO CREDIBILITY and has done irreparable damage to the democrat controlled House.  

 

Does anyone here believe or trust Adam Schiff today?

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
285
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
318
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

318 Views
Message 83 of 188

No. Trump will not be convicted. You are holding on too tight. 

Trump is a meal ticket for the republicans. Without Trump they go back to obscurity. They will not vote to convict him. The democrats in conservative states won’t vote to convict him. And you need to watch Judge Judy. Just because you want something really really bad doesn’t make it ok. Judge Judy will explain to you what proof is. What heresay is. What credibilty is. On some shows she explains what key words make a contract legally enforceable.

Just because you want to blame Trump for everything bad that has happened to you doesn’t mean it is ok to make him your punching bag. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
318
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
307
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

307 Views
Message 84 of 188

You are mixing and matching two different investigations. But nice try. Talking in circles will get you ignored. 

The Mueller report. Stay with me. Mueller report obstruction of justice. No one obstructed Mueller’s investigation. Trump talked about different things but ended up staying out of it and letting it run to completion. 

Yes. Hillary is corrupt. Hillary threatened the women that accused her husband of sexual misconduct. Yes. Hillary’s emails showed her talking with the DNC to secure her position over Bernie. Hillary who sold America for personal gain through the Clinton foundation. Hillary who showed no remorse over the people she let die in Benghazi. Hillary who paid for the pee pee dossier. 

Don’t play games. You want to be a flim flam artist take it somewhere else. 

Here is something else for you. You have been played for a sucker. Hillary Clinton and George soros have paid for and organized every anti Trump word you have heard from the media outlets, social media, protests, politicians, and they even fund antifa and black lives matter. 

It has all been staged. All your hate has been told to you. You are a puppet being used. A pawn in her game. Look up Saul Alinsky. That is who taught Hillary. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
307
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
269
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

269 Views
Message 85 of 188

Did I call you a socialist? I would have to read what I wrote. I think I responded to you and explained that Jim commented on my comment and I was commenting on a conversation I had with a socialist. Is this the one after I read through the constitution a bunch of times? 

I made a joke that if socialists took over we would be the ones climbing over Trump’s wall. Then the socialist said something stupid about them, as socialist, being able to live freely to follow the constitution if we left. That is when I had to look around to see if I was being punked. I forget the rest. I might have the timeline wrong. There were 2 or 3 socialist swinging at me. 

Let me say this. You are well spoken and can hold a conversation so I doubt I called you a socialist. You can tell a socialist because they are immature. They resort to name calling and no matter what you say they say some stupid anti Trump stuff. It is similar to when I teenager says “I know you are but what am I?” Over and over every time you talk. It’s irritating. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
269
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
260
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

260 Views
Message 86 of 188

@DanielM163007 wrote:

Obstruction of Justice?  Yes.  See the Mueller Report, section 2.

 

 So the reason for the investigastion in the first place was Hillary’s emails getting stolen then released exposing her corruption. What corruption?  The Russians stealing her emails that Hannity claims is one of her subordinate's?  Is that part of the corruption>  Is Hannity's lies part of the conspiracy?  Please note, I am not, nor has any other open-minded person excusing Hillary for having an unsecure server,

 

Didn’t Hillary screw over Bernie for the democratic nomination? Was that Hillary or the DNC?

 

Then there was the urine party dossier that Hillary paid for.,,,,,as did Mario Rubio of the GOP.

 

Come on? Seriously?  Indeed!!!  They couldn’t come up with anything better than escorts urinating on Trump? They came up with much better.....just ask Popudopolus....

 

Now Trump is the President. He is the chief executive officer. The highest law enforcement officer in America. He has the exclusive power to pardon anyone. He also has the power to higher and fire the special counsel. He talked about it but never did it. So?  That was one of the possible obstruction of justice charges. He talked about prohibitting his staff from testifying. He didn’t do it. Yes he did.....time in and time out.  None of them have testified to Congress.  They all testified. Not to Congress they didn't.  That was the other obstruction of justice charges. Remember he does have the power to end the whole investigation and doesn’t have to explain himself to anyone. The investigation was allowed to run to completion. Nope.....Mueller laid it out so Congress could finish since he, Mueller, could be indicted.  Remember?  The Mueller report exists. So does a bi-partisian congress......So when push comes to shove would he have been convicted?   He still may be convicted.......

  

Now congress held their own investigations into the obstruction of justice charges. How did they make out? I don’t think they found what they were looking for.   Because he continued to obstruct justice forbidding various staff members and others from testifying......

 

So now my comment was I couldn’t find the charges in the constitution. I didn’t say they were not laws or crimes.  Might want to re-read it and slowly this time so you don't miss it again.  I think it was Jim that replied neither could anyone else. So how is Jim wrong?  You'll have to answer that for yourself......it's there......you just have to understand.....


  


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
260
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
272
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

272 Views
Message 87 of 188

Obstruction of Justice? So the reason for the investigastion in the first place was Hillary’s emails getting stolen then released exposing her corruption. Didn’t Hillary screw over Bernie for the democratic nomination? Then there was the urine party dossier that Hillary paid for. Come on? Seriously? They couldn’t come up with anything better than escorts urinating on Trump? 

Now Trump is the President. He is the chief executive officer. The highest law enforcement officer in America. He has the exclusive power to pardon anyone. He also has the power to higher and fire the special counsel. He talked about it but never did it. That was one of the possible obstruction of justice charges. He talked about prohibitting his staff from testifying. He didn’t do it. They all testified. That was the other obstruction of justice charges. Remember he does have the power to end the whole investigation and doesn’t have to explain himself to anyone. The investigation was allowed to run to completion. The Mueller report exists. So when push comes to shove would he have been convicted? 

Now congress held their own investigations into the obstruction of justice charges. How did they make out? I don’t think they found what they were looking for. 

So now my comment was I couldn’t find the charges in the constitution. I didn’t say they were not laws or crimes. I think it was Jim that replied neither could anyone else. So how is Jim wrong?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
272
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
357
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

357 Views
Message 88 of 188

@DanielM163007 wrote:

None of that is in the constitution. As far as the whistleblower. The form debate is not about disproving the whistleblowers credibility yet. It is about exposing the whistleblower by voiding the whistleblower protection. In regards to the charges they are not convictions and most likely will not become convictions. As I am sure you know the impeachment is not a conviction. The senate will acquit the President and this will have been more wasted time. How do I know? Because they had more evidence to convict Clinton and they did not. They had the Starr report. The blue dress. Several victims with witnesses.

Now as far as Trump and bribery and all of that. They have to have a direct connection. They have to have money change hands like they do with prostitutes and johns. Or a provable intent like when the predators show up at the house of someone underage with the intent to have sex. If they didn’t show up they didn’t get arrested even though they talked about it online. Yet once they crossed the threshold they were done. You really need to open your eyes and see the real world not just what you want to happen. 

Biden’s only official title is former vice president. He is not Trump’s opponent yet. Biden is only a candidate or also ran. He isn’t Trumps opponent until he gets the nomination. Which actually looks like Elizabeth Warren might get it. These semantics are important legally when defining the criminal charges. As an example a man punches a woman he doesn’t know it is assault and battery. If he punches his wife it is domestic assault and battery. The latter carries loss of gun rights and longer jail time. 

All of these things will be argued if the lawyers/congressmen and senators are any good. You can watch and come back to give me kudos when I’m proven correct


According to what I heard just now Schiff, just stated that if anyone tries to delay or not show up when they are called, they will then assume that they are correct in thinking what they are trying to prove and will make those obstructions as paft of the article of impeachment.
I have no doubt that the Senate will not impeach Trump but, I still have faith that the american people will be the ones that will.

Let me identify my self to you, because you are not aware of many personal facts
I am a registered Republican of over 50 years, I am an American citizen that left my country (Cuba)  because of socialism and communism. it would be quite silly to infer that I could be a socialist.  BTu what I am not is a Trump follower, he insults my moral values, he is contrary to the country that I left my country for. he has betrayed the institutions of this country and he has made his best frieds my enemies.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
357
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
347
Views

Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

347 Views
Message 89 of 188

" The Mueller probe and the 13 angry democrat lawyers couldn't find anything either."

 

The above comment is FALSE!

 

The Mueller investigation found 10 examples of possible obstruction of justice. However, the Mueller probe started out with the premise they could not prosecute a sitting president, so they never made a decision one way or the other. Mueller made it very clear that if the report accused the president of committing a crime, he would not have an opportunity to present his defense in front of a jury. He would not go there.

 

Therefore, claiming the Mueller report didn't find anything is blatantly false. But as we know, in Trump World, they incredibly believe the Mueller report exonerated the President.  That's why they're Trump supporters, facts don't matter to them.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
347
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
349
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

349 Views
Message 90 of 188

None of that is in the constitution. As far as the whistleblower. The form debate is not about disproving the whistleblowers credibility yet. It is about exposing the whistleblower by voiding the whistleblower protection. In regards to the charges they are not convictions and most likely will not become convictions. As I am sure you know the impeachment is not a conviction. The senate will acquit the President and this will have been more wasted time. How do I know? Because they had more evidence to convict Clinton and they did not. They had the Starr report. The blue dress. Several victims with witnesses.

Now as far as Trump and bribery and all of that. They have to have a direct connection. They have to have money change hands like they do with prostitutes and johns. Or a provable intent like when the predators show up at the house of someone underage with the intent to have sex. If they didn’t show up they didn’t get arrested even though they talked about it online. Yet once they crossed the threshold they were done. You really need to open your eyes and see the real world not just what you want to happen. 

Biden’s only official title is former vice president. He is not Trump’s opponent yet. Biden is only a candidate or also ran. He isn’t Trumps opponent until he gets the nomination. Which actually looks like Elizabeth Warren might get it. These semantics are important legally when defining the criminal charges. As an example a man punches a woman he doesn’t know it is assault and battery. If he punches his wife it is domestic assault and battery. The latter carries loss of gun rights and longer jail time. 

All of these things will be argued if the lawyers/congressmen and senators are any good. You can watch and come back to give me kudos when I’m proven correct

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
349
Views