Trump's Russian Collusion

[youthathletics]

Yes, during one of his press conferences in front of his helicopter back in late May.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3DXxzFHEVq ... w8qlb5aj0y

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, during one of his press conferences in front of his helicopter back in late May.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3DXxzFHEVq ... w8qlb5aj0y

Different statement...the allegation now is that, like with Ukraine, Trump personally leaned on the Australian PM directly.

I dunno if it's nearly as bad as the Ukraine 'lean', but again this was about politics benefiting himself personally, asking a foreign country to gin up an alternative narrative to contradict that of the US IC. It's a totally bogus request, and they know it. But they can't say so directly to the POTUS or his toady Barr.

[old salt]

And that so-called hearsay defense? Nope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ts-wrapper

"Hearsay is evidence of a statement made by someone not in court that is offered to establish the truth of what was said. The whistleblower complaint does contain information that other people relayed to the whistleblower and notes that the whistleblower did not directly witness the underlying events. If a party sought to have the whistleblower testify about those conversations in court, it is true there would be a hearsay objection.

It is also irrelevant, primarily because the whistleblower complaint has already been confirmed by the White House’s own memorandum of the conversation. Acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee last week, agreed that the whistleblower’s information has been largely corroborated by the White House memo. The White House has also confirmed using a classified server to hide the record of the conversation, another whistleblower allegation. To a large extent, this investigation has already moved beyond the whistleblower report and is based primarily on the White House’s own admissions and record of the phone call.

The White House memo of the conversation would not be considered hearsay in a court proceeding. The Federal Rules of Evidence provide a statement is not hearsay if it is a party’s own statement offered against that party — a confession by a criminal defendant, for example. The memo contains president Trump’s own statements and is not hearsay if offered against him. The rule against hearsay also has a number of exceptions, including one for official records maintained in the ordinary course of business. The White House memo likely would fall within this “business records” exception, as well.

Equally misguided are claims that the initial investigation into the whistleblower’s complaint is suspect because of the hearsay contained in that complaint. Investigations routinely are begun based on hearsay evidence, tips from confidential informants, newspaper reports, or other information that may not necessarily be admissible in court. There has never been any rule against relying on hearsay to initiate an investigation. The investigation is done to see whether the hearsay can be corroborated — which is exactly what happened here."

All these people do is lie, in service to a dense, under-educated, incurious thug.

Another diversion. The issue with the hearsay is with regard to the time deadline & rqmt to notify Congress (which facilitated the leaking).

The WB did not have access to the WH transcript. His complaint was based 100% on hearsay.

It's real simple -- when was the form changed, by who & why ?

[a fan]

Another diversion.

The impeachment inquiry is based on what Trump and Giuliani have admitted to doing. The rest is sound and fury, and another log to the fire, at best.


The things that the Republican voters have waved through not only grows by the day, but boggles the mind.

Did Trump hit it out of the park when he said he could kill someone in cold blood and his fans would still cheer, or what?

It amazes me that this horrible human being could say that to his supporters, and they STILL miss that he's laughing at them.


Can wait to hear what we'll find out is acceptable behavior to Republican voters tomorrow. How about sell Texas to Putin? That cool? Or how about fire Barr and replace him with his new crack investigator, this Zelensky guy?

[foreverlax]

It's real simple -- when was the form changed, by who & why ?

Good questions...doesn't change the facts of what Trump said.

[ggait]

Salty -- the IC Inspector General calls bull shirt on you.

Among other things, the IC points out that the WB used the old form.

The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. 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. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – 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. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.

TL/DR: The old form was actually forked up and not consistent with the applicable law and rules. The new form is more accurate and not misleading. But again, the WB used THE OLD FORM.

Sheesh.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Document ... laints.pdf

[old salt]

Another diversion.

The impeachment inquiry is based on what Trump and Giuliani have admitted to doing. The rest is sound and fury, and another log to the fire, at best.

The things that the Republican voters have waved through not only grows by the day, but boggles the mind.

Did Trump hit it out of the park when he said he could kill someone in cold blood and his fans would still cheer, or what?

It amazes me that this horrible human being could say that to his supporters, and they STILL miss that he's laughing at them.

Can wait to hear what we'll find out is acceptable behavior to Republican voters tomorrow. How about sell Texas to Putin? That cool? Or how about fire Barr and replace him with his new crack investigator, this Zelensky guy?

The impeachment inquiry is based on what Trump & Rudy have declassified & released, once the presence & nature of the WB complaint was leaked.

None of that would have happened had the WB complaint not been categorized as "urgent",
which would not have happened had the form not been changed.

My question -- was the form changed before the WB inquired about filing a complaint, or was the form changed in order to accommodate his complaint?

[ggait]

My question -- was the form changed before the WB inquired about filing a complaint, or was the form changed in order to accommodate his complaint?

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

[old salt]

My question -- was the form changed before the WB inquired about filing a complaint, or was the form changed in order to accommodate his complaint?

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

WB used the old form.

Thank you. I was replying to afans post before yours appeared.

[ggait]

Got it.

So do we all now agree that the report from the Federalist and this whole "they changed the rules" thing was complete and utter bull shirt/fake news?

[a fan]

The impeachment inquiry is based on what Trump & Rudy have declassified & released, once the presence & nature of the WB complaint was leaked.

Respectfully, you're wrong. If Trump and Giuliani didn't admit to asking him to investigate Biden? Every Republican in America would be disputing what that transcript meant. The dancing would be dazzling. We're already getting it from R Congressmen and delightful wonderful human beings like S. Miller. I thought "that depends what the meaning of the word "is" is would never be topped as an excuse. Boy, was I wrong.

You've already told me, in your own way, that you think what Trump did is wrong. And a few weeks ago, you were asking for impeachment because you're sick of all this nonsense, too. So why are you quibbling about unimportant details?

None of that would have happened had the WB complaint not been categorized as "urgent",
which would not have happened had the form not been changed.

Right. He would have gotten away with it. You are doing everything you can to communicate to the board that that is your preferred path, when I don't think that's really what you want to communicate to us.

My question -- was the form changed before the WB inquired about filing a complaint, or was the form changed in order to accommodate his complaint?

For the life of me, I don't understand why you think this matters.

But you have your answer now:


https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics ... index.html

[old salt]

Got it.

So do we all now agree that the report from the Federalist and this whole "they changed the rules" thing was complete and utter bull shirt/fake news?

I don't know about that. If the WB used the wrong form & (based on what the Federalist published re. the timing of the change), the questions had merit.
Here's what the Federalist reported regarding the timing & the complaint form(s) :

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/in ... knowledge/

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call... eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.

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.”

“If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA,” the form concluded.

Markings on the previous version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form show that it was formally approved on May 24, 2018. Here is that original Disclosure of Urgent Concern form prior to the August 2019 revision... (can't link but can be accessed in the article}

[foreverlax]

Best part will be watching Jordan and Mcarthy say they didn't say the things they actually said.

#alternativefacts.

[old salt]

afan -- you have a short, selective, memory. Just plug [Trump stupid unethical] into advanced search.

The impeachment inquiry is based on what Trump & Rudy have declassified & released, once the presence & nature of the WB complaint was leaked.

Respectfully, you're wrong. If Trump and Giuliani didn't admit to asking him to investigate Biden? Every Republican in America would be disputing what that transcript meant. The dancing would be dazzling. We're already getting it from R Congressmen and delightful wonderful human beings like S. Miller. I thought "that depends what the meaning of the word "is" is would never be topped as an excuse. Boy, was I wrong.

You've already told me, in your own way, that you think what Trump did is wrong. And a few weeks ago, you were asking for impeachment because you're sick of all this nonsense, too. So why are you quibbling about unimportant details?

None of that would have happened had the WB complaint not been categorized as "urgent",
which would not have happened had the form not been changed.

Right. He would have gotten away with it. You are doing everything you can to communicate to the board that that is your preferred path, when I don't think that's really what you want to communicate to us.

My question -- was the form changed before the WB inquired about filing a complaint, or was the form changed in order to accommodate his complaint?

For the life of me, I don't understand why you think this matters.

But you have your answer now:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics ... index.html

Yes. Now we have the answers & you can see why the question about the need for first hand knowledge was raised,
The WB used the form on the IC IG website that said first hand knowledge was required.

Yes. I think what Trump did was wrong ( think I said stupid & unethical).

I'm trying to find out what was done to make all of this public, in order to drive impeachment.
This should have all been handled in secret, with the DNI, IC IG WB briefing the gang of 8.
The collateral damage in making it a public spectacle is significant.
Instead of Schiff going public, the WB should have gone to Burr, who could have consulted with the DNI.
We'd have had the secret accommodation that McLauglin talked about.

The WB's safety is now at risk, anyone who talked to him is now under suspicion & has to lawyer up, any trust & influence the NSC staff had with their CinC has been shattered as a new NatSecAdv transitions in. All so Schiff could get his show trial of the DNI & establish the narrative for impeachment.

Trump didn't out the WB & instill fear in furure WB's. Schiff &/or the MSM did.

[ggait]

Pathetic and inept and biased reporting. Not valid questions at all. No attempt to fairly reflect the law or the facts of the case.

Had the Wapo done such a shirty biased hack job, you’d be screaming about it salty. And rightly so.

[a fan]

Yes. Now we have the answers & you can see why the question about the need for first hand knowledge was raised,
The WB used the form on the IC IG website that said first hand knowledge was required.

I understand why you asked, in terms of the IC being sneaky. A point of curiosity.

Yes. I think what Trump did was wrong ( think I said stupid & unethical).

I remember it as "i'm not happy". I didn't want to put
words in your mouth, so thank you for putting it in your own words.

I'm trying to find out what was done to make all of this public, in order to drive impeachment.
This should have all been handled in secret, with the DNI, IC IG WB briefing the gang of 8.
The collateral damage in making it a public spectacle is significant.
Instead of Schiff going public, the WB should have gone to Burr, who could have consulted with the DNI.
We'd have had the secret accommodation that McLauglin talked about.

I think we're of the same mind here, but have come to different conclusions.

Yes, this should have been handled in secret. Where we disagree, I think, is: who broke that trust?

The WB's safety is now at risk, anyone who talked to him is now under suspicion & has to lawyer up, any trust & influence the NSC staff had with their CinC has been shattered as a new NatSecAdv transitions in. All so Schiff could get his show trial of the DNI & establish the narrative for impeachment.

Agree, except to add, trust is shattered across the board.

Trump didn't out the WB & instill fear in furure WB's. Schiff &/or the MSM did.

Respectfully disagree. You don't think there's more crazy classified intel squirreled away? It's Trump, and people have been listening to his communications for 3 years. What are the odds that he's said some illegal or unethical in that time? Fairly high, I'd think.

[old salt]

Trump didn't out the WB & instill fear in furure WB's. Schiff &/or the MSM did.

Respectfully disagree. You don't think there's more crazy classified intel squirreled away? It's Trump, and people have been listening to his communications for 3 years. What are the odds that he's said some illegal or unethical in that time? Fairly high, I'd think.

Nothing would surprise me. As I said after he was elected, I just want the nation to survive Trump.
I don't like breaking the rules to take him out because of the precedent it establishes,
Do we really want the IC pulling the strings (at home too) ? Think about it.

[a fan]

Do we really want the IC pulling the strings (at home too) ? Think about it.

No, I don't. I agree with many of your complaints.

It's why I'm so upset about not following the WB protocol, and not using enough common sense to not hand over WB complaints to Barr. It's telling our intel folks to just leak. It's easier and safer for them.

And again, it's patently clear that Maguire is a good egg, and not a partisan. He just dropped the ball. I truly believe if you walked him through what he did, he'd see the errors in his choices. He didn't help the WB.

[old salt]

Do we really want the IC pulling the strings (at home too) ? Think about it.

No, I don't. I agree with many of your complaints.

It's why I'm so upset about not following the WB protocol, and not using enough common sense to not hand over WB complaints to Barr. It's telling our intel folks to just leak. It's easier and safer for them.

And again, it's patently clear that Maguire is a good egg, and not a partisan. He just dropped the ball. I truly believe if you walked him through what he did, he'd see the errors in his choices. He didn't help the WB.

We don't know how this would have played out had it not gone public. The WB still had the right to go to Congress so long as he informed the DNI.
It would have then been in the DNI's interest to facilitate a confidential accommodation with Gang of 8 members least likely to leak & jeopardize his privacy.
Pull the pin on this sweat grenade & toss it into Burr & Warner's fox hole. That would have been my call.

[a fan]

We don't know how this would have played out had it not gone public.

Agreed. We never will. But i should would like to have seen Macguire simply turn it over to the Intel committee, and see if the WB system works.