Whistleblower

[someoneyouknow]

For the fifth time: What first-hand knowledge of WHAT?

"The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," the statement read. "The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. "

The statement clearly says the whistleblower had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and that Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson obtained additional information during his preliminary review that supported other allegations in the complaint not based on firsthand knowledge, including Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

"As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided," the statement says.​

So shut the fuck up about not having firsthand knowledge. The Inspector General has told the con artist, his traitorous enablers in the Senate, and every other whack job throwing out conspiracy theories, such as yourself, the whistleblower had firsthand knowledge.

Further, there is nothing in the law (remember that? The thing Republicans claim to want to uphold) that a whistleblower have firsthand knowledge.

"Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute," the statement reads.

"In fact," the inspector general's statement continues, "by law the Complainant ... need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law."​

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/icig-statement-whistleblower-complaint/index.html

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Washington (CNN)The intelligence community inspector general is forcefully pushing back against assertions made by President Donald Trump and several Republican lawmakers about the whistleblower complaint that has rocked Washington in recent weeks.

In a rare statement released Monday, the inspector general addressed a false claim pushed by Trump and some of his allies on Capitol Hill, including House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, that the whistleblower lacked firsthand knowledge of the conduct outlined in the complaint and therefore the allegations were based on "hearsay." But the statement from the inspector general made clear that the whistleblower was not simply communicating secondhand knowledge.
"The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," the statement read. "The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. "

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/icig-statement-whistleblower-complaint/index.html

I wonder what the ad hominem attack vector on the inspector general will be in Trump's tweet rage storm ... ?

Secret affair with Hillary

Went to Hunter Biden's wedding

Had a three-way with Strzok and page

is part of the "deep-state"

 

[zipman]

I wonder what the ad hominem attack vector on the inspector general will be in Trump's tweet rage storm ... ?

Secret affair with Hillary

Went to Hunter Biden's wedding

Had a three-way with Strzok and page

is part fo the "deep-state"

They do love their conspiracy theories so what makes you think it will only be one of those?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Queef chooses the weirdest hills to die on.

You never know what the Aspiebrain is processing when the adderall wears off.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

They do love their conspiracy theories so what makes you think it will only be one of those?

Went to Hunter Biden's wedding where he a three-way with Strzok and Page! LOL

 

[zipman]

Went to Hunter Biden's wedding where he a three-way with Strzok and Page! LOL

And they cleaned the cum up with Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

 

[Pookie]

He had first hand knowledge of something. If the call had been what he said it was that would mean something. Since the ENTIRE PREMISE for the complaint was what was conveyed in the call was invalid, the supporting evidence that this guy works there, that aid was (for a time) with-held is not relevant unless the call was as he said it was.

It was not.

If Trump did some other wrongdoing that didn't happen in the call it's not identified in the complaint. Since there was not any wrongdoing in the call, whatever supporting evidence he does or does not have about what he THOUGHT was wrongdoing on a call he didn't here matters not at all.

' but we have witnesses showing them leaving the market and getting into a green car!"

"Someone else has been apprehended for the crime."

But we have evidence!"

You should've chosen the nap.

 

[KeithD]

Went to Hunter Biden's wedding where he a three-way with Strzok and Page! LOL

And ordered a pizza from Hillary's sex trafficking front store.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Their wedding was held at the Comet Ping Pong.

 

[Aglaopheme]

And ordered a pizza from Hillary's sex trafficking front store.

Beat me to it!

 

[Aglaopheme]

You should've chosen the nap.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/xT77Y5NKL6fZXT9I3e/source.gif

 

[Conager]

Queef chooses the weirdest hills to die on.

You misspelled "Schiff."

 

[Pookie]

You misspelled "Schiff."

You have the same name as the congressman? That's gotta suck for you. Own it though. It can only improve your image.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

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.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Also in the statement:

ICIG "determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations.”

So there is some corroboration.

I still don't know what the allegations are really....Trump asked the Ukraine to look into some corrupt shit Biden Jr. was involved in?

So what?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Lol..


Back to the point... everyone else on the right, are really just fucking morons. It's obnoxious. Lol

The USA was founded and built upon right wing ideals.....Cowslinger hates the USA.

Good job comrade!! Not shocking you're chumming it up with lit's biggest racist who just happens to be another USA loathing socialist.

 

[KeithD]

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.

Again, you're just being stupid. You're just one of those unethical, immoral degenerates who refuses to see the writing on the wall and lies and lies and lies to maintain your deplorability. It's ignore for you now. You're joining a lot just like you.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Again, you're just being stupid. You're just one of those unethical, immoral degenerates who refuses to see the writing on the wall and lies and lies and lies to maintain your deplorability. It's ignore for you now. You're joining a lot just like you.

Facts make KeithD put you on iggy!!

LOL....pretty standard for the left currently.

 

[Conager]

So there is some corroboration.

I still don't know what the allegations are really....Trump asked the Ukraine to look into some corrupt shit Biden Jr. was involved in?

So what?

That was an aside. The thing that Trump is really concerned about and the reason he felt confident to begin the process of taking down the people who had set him up was Mueller had just had that horrible performance either that day or the day before. So now Trump is on the offencive having nothing to do with Biden but specifically wanting to find out who in the Ukraine had set up manafort. Manafort had been falsely accused of things he hadn't done., Trump's fire was that Trump was being set up by the same people that were ignoring Hunter Biden. He could care less about Hunter Biden what he wants is to know what crowdstrike knew and when they knew it. Also he wants to know whether it was actually Russia or not and if it was Russia why did they try to imply that Trump had prior knowledge when he did

It's mostly about the Democrats disparaging his win. He feels like they've selling his win by implying that anyone but him was required to win this election. Since he basically listen to No One he's technically correct on that. He didn't have a secret Russian advisors to help him win. As if there are Russian advisors it somehow know American politics better than American advisers. The whole narrative was silly. Trump should just ignore the whole thing.

Buddy's Trump so he wants to go after the people that went after him which he absolutely can do. A lot of those Trails run through various countries he can also do that. It has nothing to do about the upcoming election it has everything to do about the past one.

 

[Aglaopheme]

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.

 

[Conager]

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.

Ooooohhh that sounds ONEROUS!

That has got to be much more serious than Bill and Hillary Clinton shaking down world leaders for actual cash donations.

Your interpretation is absolutely silly. And in-kind donation would be the sort of thing like Fusion GPS spending actual cash money on something of value and spending their time on it after accepting money from Hillary and the DNC for totally not that thing that they ended up producing.

Seriously though an end kind contribution is going to be something where you're providing something that you normally charge for. A lawyer could provide in-kind contributions. A person walking door-to-door and hanging door hangers without being compensated for their time is not an in-kind contribution. Neither would someone giving James Carville some dirt that's going to benefit Bill Clinton if providing dirt is not their primary occupation. You might be able to argue it if the person providing the dirt was an actual investigator and donated his time to dig up that dirt. But just because something is valuable to a campaign doesn't make it a thing of value that is conveyed. If the thing has no particular to Value to the person that's giving it to you they're not conveying any value.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That was an aside. The thing that Trump is really concerned about and the reason he felt confident to begin the process of taking down the people who had set him up was Mueller had just had that horrible performance either that day or the day before. So now Trump is on the offencive having nothing to do with Biden but specifically wanting to find out who in the Ukraine had set up manafort. Manafort had been falsely accused of things he hadn't done., Trump's fire was that Trump was being set up by the same people that were ignoring Hunter Biden. He could care less about Hunter Biden what he wants is to know what crowdstrike knew and when they knew it. Also he wants to know whether it was actually Russia or not and if it was Russia why did they try to imply that Trump had prior knowledge when he did

It's mostly about the Democrats disparaging his win. He feels like they've selling his win by implying that anyone but him was required to win this election. Since he basically listen to No One he's technically correct on that. He didn't have a secret Russian advisors to help him win. As if there are Russian advisors it somehow know American politics better than American advisers. The whole narrative was silly. Trump should just ignore the whole thing.

Buddy's Trump so he wants to go after the people that went after him which he absolutely can do. A lot of those Trails run through various countries he can also do that. It has nothing to do about the upcoming election it has everything to do about the past one.

Sure, but what I'm looking for is a named crime.

A specific law that's been violated.

 

[Conager]

Sure, but what I'm looking for is a named crime.

A specific law that's been violated.

That's funny because that's exactly what the Democrats are looking for. An actual crime that they can call High crimes and misdemeanors. They're already starting to spin where they're saying impeachment does not mean that there has to be any crime in as far as criminal statutes being violated that a high crime it's just an offense against the sensibilities of the political classmates

They are quite right about that impeachment is political removal. Going back to England where they got the concept to borrow from, the point to high crimes and misdemeanors is exactly that things that offend the populist sufficiently that those removing you from Office feel confident that that's what the citizenry want done. It literally could be anything.


The problem is a they don't have the support of the citizenry and B they have been hyping criminal activity so long that it's now conflated in everyone's mind that that's necessary for impeachment.

 

[Kantarii]

Sure, but what I'm looking for is a named crime.

A specific law that's been violated.

But..... they have all this so-called evidence and no named crime. That makes zero sense, but that’s what can be expected with blind Trump rage from the Left.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Ooooohhh that sounds ONEROUS!

That has got to be much more serious than Bill and Hillary Clinton shaking down world leaders for actual cash donations.

Your interpretation is absolutely silly. And in-kind donation would be the sort of thing like Fusion GPS spending actual cash money on something of value and spending their time on it after accepting money from Hillary and the DNC for totally not that thing that they ended up producing.

Seriously though an end kind contribution is going to be something where you're providing something that you normally charge for. A lawyer could provide in-kind contributions. A person walking door-to-door and hanging door hangers without being compensated for their time is not an in-kind contribution. Neither would someone giving James Carville some dirt that's going to benefit Bill Clinton if providing dirt is not their primary occupation. You might be able to argue it if the person providing the dirt was an actual investigator and donated his time to dig up that dirt. But just because something is valuable to a campaign doesn't make it a thing of value that is conveyed. If the thing has no particular to Value to the person that's giving it to you they're not conveying any value.

Dude, you’ve no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to FEC compliance, and you really don’t want to try and sportosplain to me anything that has to do with the FEC. Trust me in this one.