Whistleblower

[Aglaopheme]

I think we're just getting started.

Agreed.

 

[pointless]

It sure didn’t take long for Que to march right over there with them.

he gets off on making a fool of himself.

 

[Aglaopheme]

he gets off on making a fool of himself.

So, just another one that sometimes says stupid stuff on purpose.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It sure didn’t take long for Que to march right over there with them.

*nods*
That's what he "does".
https://i.imgur.com/CyYhja9.jpg

 

[Wrong Element]

LOL, people were explaining the concept to him repeatedly.

I think he's waiting on the right wing talking points.

I think he'll go with "deep state" coup.

The same deep state that is so wily and all-powerful that they couldn't prevent Trump from becoming president. We're talking about a plot here so diabolically intricate that, to the average mind, it might appear not to make any sense at all.

 

[icanhelp1]

The same deep state that is so wily and all-powerful that they couldn't prevent Trump from becoming president. We're talking about a plot here so diabolically intricate that, to the average mind, it might appear not to make any sense at all.

Hillary’s ineptitude and overconfidence is what gave Trump the office. The deep state is trying to oust a duly elected president.

 

[beezzz]

House Intelligence Rules of Procedure require that ALL members of the committee (including GOP) have access “at all times” to “all papers” and any “other material” received from “any source”. Did Adam Schitt follow this rule or not? intelligence.senate.gov/about/rules-pr…

 

[beezzz]

CNN last night: The idea that Adam Schitt knew about the "whistleblower" complaint before it was filed is a "false claim."

New York Times reports today: Adam Schitt knew about the "whistleblower" complaint before it was filed.

 

[beezzz]

Brit Hume
✔
@brithume
Schiff defenders are claiming there’s nothing to see here in the revelation that the whistleblower conferred with Schiff staff before filing the complaint. If that’s so, why didn’t Schiff acknowledge the contact when asked about it? 1/2

4,512
5:05 PM - Oct 2, 2019

 

[beezzz]

Brit Hume
✔
@brithume
Replying to @brithume
2/2 I think the answer is obvious. He knew how it would look. So he gave this answer, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” If by “we” he meant only himself, he’s being slippery. If by “we” he meant himself and his staff, he lied.

3,927
5:08 PM - Oct 2, 2019

 

[Wrong Element]

The call with Ukrainian President Zelensky did take place, so that part is true. From there, the lies begin.

<snip> <snip> <andyetmoresnip>
​

Hey, the board's resident Scott Walker groupie, a person so dumb she once posted a photo of her children on the GB, has been zapped, probably for too many excessively long quotes such as the ones in this post.

How am I supposed to ever get the lowdown now on corporate welfare in Wisconsin?​

 

[Aglaopheme]

Hey, the board's resident Scott Walker groupie, a person so dumb she once posted a photo of her children on the GB, has been zapped, probably for too many excessively long quotes such as the ones in this post.

How am I supposed to ever get the lowdown now on corporate welfare in Wisconsin?

Posting that photo was in the top 5 of the dumbest things I have ever seen firsthand on the GB.

Ha! Perhaps it was the news that Walker’s son was not going to run for Congress that did her in.

 

[jaF0]

Hey, the board's resident Scott Walker groupie, a person so dumb she once posted a photo of her children on the GB, has been zapped, probably for too many excessively long quotes such as the ones in this post.

How am I supposed to ever get the lowdown now on corporate welfare in Wisconsin?

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=91365764&postcount=92

 

[Adre]

It sure didn’t take long for Que to march right over there with them.

Queefbag likes to hide amongst his tribe.

 

[adrina]

Hey now, if posting the same exact long winded bullshit six times isn't dedication, what is.

 

[someoneyouknow]

CNN last night: The idea that Adam Schitt knew about the "whistleblower" complaint before it was filed is a "false claim."

New York Times reports today: Adam Schitt knew about the "whistleblower" complaint before it was filed.

So now the New York Times is a reputable source of news?

You deplorables are hilarious in your stupidity.

Also, as you point out, Schiff knew of the complaint, but not what is was about or was filing it.

After concerns about how the internal CIA process was proceeding, the whistleblower then reportedly spoke to an Intelligence Committee staff member who suggested that the person hire a lawyer and file a complaint.

The staffer shared part of the whistleblower's concerns with the committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), but did not share the person's identity with anyone, according to the Times.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff, told the Times.​

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464077-whistleblower-contacted-schiffs-committee-before-filing-complaint

 

[beezzz]

So now the New York Times is a reputable source of news?

You deplorables are hilarious in your stupidity.

Also, as you point out, Schiff knew of the complaint, but not what is was about or was filing it.

After concerns about how the internal CIA process was proceeding, the whistleblower then reportedly spoke to an Intelligence Committee staff member who suggested that the person hire a lawyer and file a complaint.

The staffer shared part of the whistleblower's concerns with the committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), but did not share the person's identity with anyone, according to the Times.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff, told the Times.​

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464077-whistleblower-contacted-schiffs-committee-before-filing-complaint

this is a comment from his staff and you present it as FACT


is Richard Reid a Muslim sounding name?

 

[jaF0]

Did Donny really do this?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8b/cb/37/8bcb37a85d24fd2190fd1899d098791a.jpg

One of the news blips says he did. But did he?

 

[someoneyouknow]

this is a comment from his staff and you present it as FACT


is Richard Reid a Muslim sounding name?

It came from the Times, the very source you previously cited. So which is it? Either their reporting that Schiff knew of the complaint beforehand if valid, which means the staffer is telling the truth, or the Times article is fake.

Make up your mind.

 

[beezzz]

I.

is Richard Reid a Muslim sounding name?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Hillary’s ineptitude and overconfidence is what gave Trump the office. The deep state is trying to oust a duly elected president.

The duly elected president is ousting himself by being unethical, immoral, breaking the law, violating every norm and - oh by the way - being a pathological liar.

 

[Kantarii]

https://apple.news/ABFkgIKVoTJKfMXW-5W0wFg

Might be a gift

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Trump openly asks for a quid pro quo "favor" from a foreign power to investigate a political opponent. That much is clear. It has been admitted to. We didn't need the transcript for that.

I'm honestly curious, because I did not see it and admit I might have missed something.

A quid pro quo, Latin meaning "this for that," requires both sides to give something.

What do you see Trump offering in return for Ukraine investigating the Bidens?

Schiff Admits There Was No Quid Pro Quo.

If you hover over the word "contributions" in the text he gave you a link to, you will see a popup box defining the word contribution for the purposes of the law. Money is addressed, but so is "anything of value given to influence a federal election". I took a screen shot for you.

I have now had time to do some research on the regulation you cite and its enabling statute, 52 U.S.C. § 30121.

In this context, "anything of value" means an "item" or "payment," not an action. E.g., United States v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731, 744 (9th Cir.2014); United States v. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299, 1305 (6th Cir.1986); United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603, 623 (2d Cir.1983).

The regulation you cite does not apply, and I could not find any law addressing "aiding," which is what Napolitano suggests was Trump's crime. He may have been confused.

In kind donation:

An in-kind contribution is a non-monetary contribution. Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution. Similarly, when a person or entity pays for services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person or entity in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.

The value of an in-kind contribution—the usual and normal charge—counts against the contribution limit as a gift of money does. Additionally, like any other contribution, in-kind contributions count against the contributor’s limit for the next election, unless they are otherwise designated.

Call it aid or assistance the Chair of the FEC disagrees with you opinion.

That's fine, but federal appellate court decisions hold precedence over any bureaucratic policy statement. In other words, you're just mistaken as to the law.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Town Hall posts openly debunked lies, routinely. Try again.

Here is something you should read:

The Federalist Papers : No. 65

THE remaining powers which the plan of the convention allots to the Senate, in a distinct capacity, are comprised in their participation with the executive in the appointment to offices, and in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments. As in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent, the provisions relating to it will most properly be discussed in the examination of that department. We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

He doesn't admit any such thing, liar.

He's asked to respond to the RW argument that since there (supposedly) was no QPQ then everything's fine.

He says, That's nonsense. There doesn't have to be a QPQ for it to be illegal. The illegal part is the solicitation.

He's not asked, and he doesn't say one way or the other, whether or not he thinks there was in fact a QPQ.

Schiff Admits There Was No Quid Pro Quo.



That's fine, but federal appellate court decisions hold precedence over any bureaucratic policy statement. In other words, you're just mistaken as to the law.