Whistleblower

[Conager]

1975 is not within the baby boom.

Maybe if you dig in the footnotes of Wikipedia you might have something but a Wiki cite is about as weak as it gets Boomer.

Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated,[18][19] especially its main allegations, that Russia and Putin tried to prop up Trump over Clinton,[20][13][11] and that many Trump campaign members had frequent secret contacts with Russians,[21][22][23][24][25] however many allegations remain unverified. One allegation against Michael Cohen was dismissed by the Mueller Report using Cohen's own words.[26] The Daily Telegraph reported that anonymous sources believe that Russian intelligence agencies may have sought to create doubt about the veracity of the dossier.[27]

This is laughable. It conflates all kinds of nonsense from the Russia Collusion fiasco (that Mueller's report EXPLICITLY rejected as it EXPLICITLY stated that NO Americans were involved in the Russians efforts which the DNC post election autopsy found were not a factor at all) with the dossier allegations which PRE-DATE those idiotic collusion ideas.

The Russians hated Clinton because she didn't stay bought and She denigrated Putin's legitimacy post election. The Russians favored Bernie.

So basically you "heard things" meaning you got it from the perpetually embarrassing herself Maddow, not an actual news source, and after finally pointed out that you had made a gratuitous assertion for the fifth time you hastily Googled for confirmation bias and pulled up this crap.

That's BettyPoop level crap after Sgt Spidey level deflection. Fo better.

 

[jomar]

He rarely thinks anything through. He's on one of his "100 shitposts a day" posting jags. 76 so far today.....

I never paid much attention before, but man, seems he could use some tightening up.

 

[Rightguide]

So are you saying you think the IG has no authority in the matter?

Can't you read? I said the law only constrains the IG from identifying the whistleblower, nobody else. The statute under which the WB made his complaint only applies to complaints within the Intel Community. The statute doesn't confer any rights to Intel Community employees to question the foreign policy of the United States, the President's authority, or the President's conversations with foreign leaders. The complaint is utter bullshit. You're being played by the media. Read the statute, that's why I posted it.

 

[Rightguide]

So you can't cite any statute, noted.

Quite the large turd of bullshit here. DId you just crap this out of your ass?

Here's the statute, read it; 50 U.S. Code § 3033

 

[Carnal_Flower]

That Statute is about the Office of Inspector General of the IC.

Nothing about whistleblowers in there.

Still waiting.

Here's the statute, read it; 50 U.S. Code § 3033

 

[Conager]

That Statute is about the Office of Inspector General of the IC.

Nothing about whistleblowers in there.

Still waiting.

Obviously didn't read it, or incapable of understanding what you read.

IG is who a whistleblower submits his complaint to. Statute (among other things you did not bother to read) gives IG the authority to receive the complaint and outlines his responsibilities in handling such.

You are the Jen in Florida of the left which is why even the dumbest posters on the left don't bother to chime in with you.

 

[jaF0]

That Statute is about the Office of Inspector General of the IC.

Nothing about whistleblowers in there.

Still waiting.

He's stuck on 'Repeat', so you may be waiting a while.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

And the WB submitted his complaint to the IG of the IC just as the Statute says. All done legally and properly. So you just refuted and undermined all your rants yesterday.

Obviously didn't read it, or incapable of understanding what you read.

IG is who a whistleblower submits his complaint to. Statute (among other things you did not bother to read) gives IG the authority to receive the complaint and outlines his responsibilities in handling such.

You are the Jen in Florida of the left which is why even the dumbest posters on the left don't bother to chime in with you.

 

[HisArpy]

And the WB submitted his complaint to the IG of the IC just as the Statute says. All done legally and properly. So you just refuted and undermined all your rants yesterday.

The procedure for a potential WB is to take the complaint to his superiors FIRST. Step 2, if the superiors do nothing, is to take it to the ICIG.

There is NO "go talk with your favorite Congresscritter first so they can send you to a partisan lawyer to help you draft your complaint against the President you oppose" step.

 

[HisArpy]

No real need for the whistleblower to testify. The report documented goings on and got the ball rolling. Shouting for the wb to show themselves is just noise.



Apparently, they didn’t need to be there, but we’re told a consistent story from disparate folk that built something credible they felt a duty to report.



If you don’t know who the wb is how do you they don’t have clearance?



LOL, Fox News. Got it.



Now that I agree with.

1. One of the available defenses to any accusation is to be able to investigate the biases of the accuser(s). In this case, the WB cannot be questioned as to his motivations or intentions in bringing the accusation.

2. At this point, according to various media reports and synthesized by me, the WB isn't going to testify AND the impeachment hearings are going to focus on obstruction from the Mueller report. Which kind of means that the WB complaint doesn't hold water. Because if it did, it'd be right at the forefront. Which it's not.

3. The ICIG told us that the WB is a FORMER WH staffer, that he had no first hand information, and has a distinct political bias against the President. As a FORMER WH staffer, he has no clearance to receive classified information of the type we're discussing here. We know this because, again, the ICIG TOLD US this information.

4. ALL news media outlets have had this information. Please try to keep up with the rest of the class.

5. That's something I suppose.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Cite?

I don't see anything about that. Feel free to prove I'm wrong.

The procedure for a potential WB is to take the complaint to his superiors FIRST. Step 2, if the superiors do nothing, is to take it to the ICIG.

There is NO "go talk with your favorite Congresscritter first so they can send you to a partisan lawyer to help you draft your complaint against the President you oppose" step.

 

[phrodeau]

1. One of the available defenses to any accusation is to be able to investigate the biases of the accuser(s). In this case, the WB cannot be questioned as to his motivations or intentions in bringing the accusation.

2. At this point, according to various media reports and synthesized by me, the WB isn't going to testify AND the impeachment hearings are going to focus on obstruction from the Mueller report. Which kind of means that the WB complaint doesn't hold water. Because if it did, it'd be right at the forefront. Which it's not.

3. The ICIG told us that the WB is a FORMER WH staffer, that he had no first hand information, and has a distinct political bias against the President. As a FORMER WH staffer, he has no clearance to receive classified information of the type we're discussing here. We know this because, again, the ICIG TOLD US this information.

4. ALL news media outlets have had this information. Please try to keep up with the rest of the class.

5. That's something I suppose.

The whistleblower didn’t make an accusation. He made a complaint.

Trump does not stand accused and is not on trial. He will not be accused until articles of impeachment are produced, and he will not be on trial until the Senate takes it up.

 

[Rightguide]

That Statute is about the Office of Inspector General of the IC.

Nothing about whistleblowers in there.

Still waiting.

Obviously didn't read it, or incapable of understanding what you read.

IG is who a whistleblower submits his complaint to. Statute (among other things you did not bother to read) gives IG the authority to receive the complaint and outlines his responsibilities in handling such.

You are the Jen in Florida of the left which is why even the dumbest posters on the left don't bother to chime in with you.

Handed her the friggin' law and she can't even read it let alone putting two and two together about how it's relevant to the present democrat narrative.

 

[Rightguide]

The whistleblower didn’t make an accusation. He made a complaint.

He made a groundless complaint about something that did not fall within the parameters Whistleblower law, he did so without clearance or first hand knowledge, and for nefarious purpose.

 

[Rightguide]

Cite?

I don't see anything about that. Feel free to prove I'm wrong.

That's because, as usual, you aren't informed enough to converse on the subject. In October of 1998 Bill Clinton signed into law the “Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998,” or ICWPA. The purpose of the law was to create a process for forwarding to Congress “a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern.”

The term urgent concern is defined by the ICWPA as:

“A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.”

This means the complaint does not meet the requirements of the law. In addition the law conveys no authority to oversee or report on foreign policy, the President, or the President's conversations with foreign leaders. The Director of National Intelligence or the ICIG have no responsibility or authority over the President, which means this law is not applicable in this situation.

Here is a link to the legal opinion of the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel supporting this contention and explaining the function of the law as well as why this complaint does not meet the definition of "urgent concern.".

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...2946be-0742-4e91-9e6b-2f4bac91565f.pdf#page=1

 

[RobDownSouth]

He made a groundless complaint about something that did not fall within the parameters Whistleblower law, he did so without clearance or first hand knowledge, and for nefarious purpose.

....which has since been confirmed under oath as possibly criminal activity by multiple witnesses. Bribery and extortion are criminal activities.

 

[Rightguide]

....which has since been confirmed under oath as possibly criminal activity by multiple witnesses. Bribery and extortion are criminal activities.

Which is all bullshit, Rob. Even if Trump were to say to Ukraine, I want you to investigate the Biden's criminal conduct in Ukraine in 2016 or I'm not going to provide military assistance, he would not be breaking any law. Biden's criminal activity in 2016 does not indemnify him from criminal investigation just because of the possibility he might be opposing Trump in an election in 2020. The President is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States and is required by oath to see the laws are faithfully executed. However the President did not say this and no one can point to a place in the transcript where he did.

There's a better case to suggest that Lt. Col. Vindman committed a crime than than there is for trump. Especially where Vindman told the Ukrainians no to do what Trump had asked. Go to the transcript of Vindman's testimony and read pages 145-163 and observe John Ratcliffe totally destroy Vindman's credibility.

PS: Oh, and on page 222 there is this:

MR. RATCLIFFE: But here's what I wanted clarification on that because I want to go back to the discussion that you and I had earlier about your opinion that there was a demand by President Trump to President Zelensky during that July 25th phone call to investigate a U.S. citizen. And I just wanted to be clear, is it fair then that when you related that opinion that the withholding of military aid was clearly not pant of the demand during that July 25th phone call?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: I don't think the Ukrainians were aware of it.

 

[icanhelp1]

He made a groundless complaint about something that did not fall within the parameters Whistleblower law, he did so without clearance or first hand knowledge, and for nefarious purpose.

So; the WB made a complaint, he disagreed with the presidents foreign policy,. What's wrong with that picture. If the complaint didn't go to the IG first but to a schiff cronie that's in violation of 18 U.S. code 1924 and 798. Seems like the left has a problem with handling classified material.

If the WB, whoever it was, was concerned with policy it's not his business. An Army officer is required to follow the chain of command, he wasn't forced to follow an unlawful order, so take it up the chain within the WH.

 

[Rightguide]

So; the WB made a complaint, he disagreed with the presidents foreign policy,. What's wrong with that picture. If the complaint didn't go to the IG first but to a schiff cronie that's in violation of 18 U.S. code 1924 and 798. Seems like the left has a problem with handling classified material.

If the WB, whoever it was, was concerned with policy it's not his business. An Army officer is required to follow the chain of command, he wasn't forced to follow an unlawful order, so take it up the chain within the WH.

If Vindman handed that off to the WB that's two people who are in violation of law. If he knew the WB was going to Schiff first, he's in more trouble. He should probably resign.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Which is all bullshit, Rob. Even if Trump were to say to Ukraine, I want you to investigate the Biden's criminal conduct in Ukraine in 2016 or I'm not going to provide military assistance, he would not be breaking any law. <deflection snip>

It's called "bribery and extortion", no matter how you and Fox News attempt to spin it otherwise.

 

[HisArpy]

The whistleblower didn’t make an accusation. He made a complaint.

Trump does not stand accused and is not on trial. He will not be accused until articles of impeachment are produced, and he will not be on trial until the Senate takes it up.

GOFUCKYOURSELF

 

[HisArpy]

Cite?

I don't see anything about that. Feel free to prove I'm wrong.

Gee, it's only been posted several times. A few times in this very thread. Perhaps all those times you said you read the statute weren't actually truthful on your part?

 

[texasj65]

GOFUCKYOURSELF

you seem mad... are you triggered?

 

[HisArpy]

you seem mad... are you triggered?

You seem stupid,.. are you in reality or do you just play one on the internet?

 

[jaF0]

He should probably resign.

I'll probably appoint him Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Vote for me.



Vote often.