Trump's Russian Collusion

[a fan]

"I would like you to do us a favor though...."

I know, right.

It's as if THAT phrase had never been spoken by a President before.

look at the discomfort in the room? why is that? (at 1:30, a very Trump like boast from Obama )

Thought you were going to stop with the whataboutisms after complaining about the tone here?

[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.

Don't you see what's happening.

I think you misinterpreted my response. To clarify, my answer was "no, I don't want the IC pulling the strings".

I knew you got it. ...I just updated my complaints & tried to tie them together in the big picture.

[a fan]

So I misinterpreted YOUR response. Nice. Sorry.

I'm not excited about any of this. It's clear to me that things that are illegal and things that are unethical are the same thing in the minds of many Americans.

And it also occurred to me that Pompeo, Barr, etc. don't have the the protections that Trump does. They CAN be charged with crimes.

Haldeman, Erlichman, Colson et. al. went down first.

And no, I'm not saying that they WILL be charged. Just pointing out that they CAN get charged.

[RedFromMI]

So I misinterpreted YOUR response. Nice. Sorry.

I'm not excited about any of this. It's clear to me that things that are illegal and things that are unethical are the same thing in the minds of many Americans.

And it also occurred to me that Pompeo, Barr, etc. don't have the the protections that Trump does. They CAN be charged with crimes.

Haldeman, Erlichman, Colson et. al. went down first.

And no, I'm not saying that they WILL be charged. Just pointing out that they CAN get charged.

The problem is that Barr basically will keep that from happening...

[njbill]

ggait, thanks for posting the link to yesterday’s press release from the ICIG. I would be interested in learning the history of the whistleblower forms. The press release says the form the whistleblower used was put in place on May 24, 2018, a couple of days after the current ICIG was sworn in but a few days before he started work. It would seem the current ICIG had nothing to do with the May 24, 2018 forms. These are the forms that included the first hand knowledge requirement which is inconsistent with the underlying enabling statute.

So when did the whistleblower forms first include the first hand knowledge requirement? May 2018, or was this requirement in earlier versions of the form? The first ICIG started in 2010. I’m not sure if there were whistleblower forms before that for the intelligence community. It seems very odd to me that forms would be prepared which are so clearly in derogation of the enabling statute.

Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: maybe the Trump administration changed the forms in or before May 2018 to add the first hand knowledge requirement in order to try to minimize the number of whistleblower complaints. (Before you Trumpists start pounding your keyboards, my comment is tongue-in-cheek.) In any event, I would be interested in when and why the forms first included the first hand knowledge requirement.

[a fan]

So I misinterpreted YOUR response. Nice. Sorry.

I'm not excited about any of this. It's clear to me that things that are illegal and things that are unethical are the same thing in the minds of many Americans.

And it also occurred to me that Pompeo, Barr, etc. don't have the the protections that Trump does. They CAN be charged with crimes.

Haldeman, Erlichman, Colson et. al. went down first.

And no, I'm not saying that they WILL be charged. Just pointing out that they CAN get charged.

The problem is that Barr basically will keep that from happening...

If laws were actually broken (I have no clue if there were), he can only delay. If you ask me, delay is the enemy of the Republican party.

If McConnell is smart, he'll want this to go as quickly as possible. Would you want to be dealing with impeachment proceedings----with Americans actually watching the daily proceedings-----months, or even just weeks away from an election?

I'd want to get this over with as fast as possible. Even if Trump is impeached, Pence would not be an easy man to defeat in 2020, if you ask me.

[old salt]

I can't cut & paste quote from this pdf doc, but it appears the IG gave the WB background info stating an urgent complaint required first hand knowledge, even though the form had been changed.

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

Dubious Congress members are still asking if it was this WB's complaint which triggered the change in the form uploaded on the IC IG website.

I'm still not clear on which form the WB used, from where he got the form, & if it was the newest revision of the form.

Also, where in WB's complaint does he list his first hand knowledge ?

[foreverlax]

Trump’s tweets this morning suggest a civil war over his removal is possible. He demands to meet his accuser. And Adam Schiff should be arrested.

and tried for treason...

If folks don't understand who this guy really is by now, he's going to make it very clear...

Yup, he is really pushing the dial on the unhinged meter higher every day now.

Trumps tweet today -

Why isn’t Congressman Adam Schiff being brought up on charges for fraudulently making up a statement and reading it to Congress as if this statement, which was very dishonest and bad for me, was directly made by the President of the United States? This should never be allowed!

What Schiff actually said -

Schiff: "Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the President communicates.....

[old salt]

So I misinterpreted YOUR response. Nice. Sorry.

I'm not excited about any of this. It's clear to me that things that are illegal and things that are unethical are the same thing in the minds of many Americans.

And it also occurred to me that Pompeo, Barr, etc. don't have the the protections that Trump does. They CAN be charged with crimes.

Haldeman, Erlichman, Colson et. al. went down first.

And no, I'm not saying that they WILL be charged. Just pointing out that they CAN get charged.

I wasn't that clear. I was just playing off your response & laid out my "big picture".

What crimes would Pompeo & Barr be charged with ? Doing their jobs ?

[foreverlax]

I can't cut & paste quote from this pdf doc, but it appears the IG gave the WB background info stating an urgent complaint required first hand knowledge, even though the form had been changed.

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

Dubious Congress members are still asking if it was this WB's complaint which triggered the change in the form uploaded on the IC IG website."In June 2019, the newly hired Director for the Center for Protected Disclosures entered on duty. Thus, the Center for Protected Disclosures has been reviewing the forms provided to whistleblowers who wish to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees. In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees."

I'm still not clear on which form the WB used, from where he got the form, & if it was the newest revision of the form."In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018."

Also, where in WB's complaint does he list his first hand knowledge ? 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.”

Clearly, the new form was implemented after the new Director started, older form was used and the WB attested to having direct knowledge on the form.

[old salt]

I can't cut & paste quote from this pdf doc, but it appears the IG gave the WB background info stating an urgent complaint required first hand knowledge, even though the form had been changed.

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

Dubious Congress members are still asking if it was this WB's complaint which triggered the change in the form uploaded on the IC IG website."In June 2019, the newly hired Director for the Center for Protected Disclosures entered on duty. Thus, the Center for Protected Disclosures has been reviewing the forms provided to whistleblowers who wish to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees. In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees."

I'm still not clear on which form the WB used, from where he got the form, & if it was the newest revision of the form."In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018."

Also, where in WB's complaint does he list his first hand knowledge ? 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.”

Clearly, the new form was implemented after the new Director started, older form was used and the WB attested to having direct knowledge on the form.

If you are able, plz cut & paste quote the text on the bottom of pg1 - top of pg 2 describing the Background Information provided to the WB on Aug 12.
It clearly states the rqmt for first hand knowledge, which appears to be a limitation imposed by the IG & not reqd by the law.
It only adds to the confusion.

Even though the WB checked the block saying he had first hand knowledge, where does he present that specific first hand knowledge in his complaint ?

[seacoaster]

Red herring; deceptive; and irrelevant. "I would like you to do us a favor though...."

[seacoaster]

NJBill writes: "Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: maybe the Trump administration changed the forms in or before May 2018 to add the first hand knowledge requirement in order to try to minimize the number of whistleblower complaints."

Exactly; as plausible or more plausible than the silliness being chucked around by Randy and the Talking Points.

[3rdPersonPlural]

So I misinterpreted YOUR response. Nice. Sorry.

I'm not excited about any of this. It's clear to me that things that are illegal and things that are unethical are the same thing in the minds of many Americans.

And it also occurred to me that Pompeo, Barr, etc. don't have the the protections that Trump does. They CAN be charged with crimes.

Haldeman, Erlichman, Colson et. al. went down first.

And no, I'm not saying that they WILL be charged. Just pointing out that they CAN get charged.

The problem is that Barr basically will keep that from happening...

I'm sure that this is what my rock ribbed Republican father was saying about Mitchell 40-something years ago

[foreverlax]

I can't cut & paste quote from this pdf doc, but it appears the IG gave the WB background info stating an urgent complaint required first hand knowledge, even though the form had been changed.

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

Dubious Congress members are still asking if it was this WB's complaint which triggered the change in the form uploaded on the IC IG website."In June 2019, the newly hired Director for the Center for Protected Disclosures entered on duty. Thus, the Center for Protected Disclosures has been reviewing the forms provided to whistleblowers who wish to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees. In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees."

I'm still not clear on which form the WB used, from where he got the form, & if it was the newest revision of the form."In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018."

Also, where in WB's complaint does he list his first hand knowledge ? 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.”

Clearly, the new form was implemented after the new Director started, older form was used and the WB attested to having direct knowledge on the form.

If you are able, plz cut & paste quote the text on the bottom of pg1 - top of pg 2 describing the Background Information provided to the WB on Aug 12.
It clearly states the rqmt for first hand knowledge, which appears to be a limitation imposed by the IG & not reqd by the law.
It only adds to the confusion.

Even though the WB checked the block saying he had first hand knowledge, where does he present that specific first hand knowledge in his complaint ?

Sure, glad to accommodate

At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the
following language:

In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit
information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from
another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge
of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide
sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If youthink wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

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.

[njbill]

A couple of additional points in addition to foreverlax's comments, with which I agree.

I can't cut & paste quote from this pdf doc, but it appears the IG gave the WB background info stating an urgent complaint required first hand knowledge, even though the form had been changed.I read the press release similarly, except that the form hadn't been changed on or about Aug. 12 when the WB filed his complaint. Sounds to me like the background info document the ICIG gave the WB was simply standard boilerplate stuff that gets automatically sent to any WB.

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

Dubious Congress members are still asking if it was this WB's complaint which triggered the change in the form uploaded on the IC IG website."In June 2019, the newly hired Director for the Center for Protected Disclosures entered on duty. Thus, the Center for Protected Disclosures has been reviewing the forms provided to whistleblowers who wish to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees. In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees." I think it is a fair reading of the circumstances to say a major impetus for changing the form was the recent events. BUT the change was entirely warranted given that the prior form improperly included requirements that aren't in the law.

I'm still not clear on which form the WB used, from where he got the form, & if it was the newest revision of the form."In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018."Presumably he got the form from the relevant website. He used the form that was in effect at the time he submitted his complaint. The newest revision to the form was put in place subsequently.

Also, where in WB's complaint does he list his first hand knowledge ? 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.” The form with the boxes the WB checked, which is referred to in the press release, hasn't been publicly released as far as I know. It was not part of the WB document released last week.

Clearly, the new form was implemented after the new Director started, older form was used and the WB attested to having direct knowledge on the form.

[old salt]

NJBill writes: "Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: maybe the Trump administration changed the forms in or before May 2018 to add the first hand knowledge requirement in order to try to minimize the number of whistleblower complaints."

Exactly; as plausible or more plausible than the silliness being chucked around by Randy and the Talking Points.

Nice dodge, ignoring what's in the Background Information given to the WB when filing his complaint, which you posted for us.

At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the
following language:

In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from
another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge
of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If youthink wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

Thanks for the admin assist. Do you see the conflict with the updated form & thus the questions ?

[ggait]

NJBill writes: "Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: maybe the Trump administration changed the forms in or before May 2018 to add the first hand knowledge requirement in order to try to minimize the number of whistleblower complaints."

Exactly; as plausible or more plausible than the silliness being chucked around by Randy and the Talking Points.

Possible. But I always start with Hanlon's Razor -- incompetence more likely than nefariousness.

Key point. The old form was wrong wrong wrong wrong on what the actual law and requirements are. A stupid PDF form can't over-ride the law.

So:

1. Thankfully, the WB used the old bad form and was not put off by its false and misleading verbiage.

2. The WB said he had first hand knowledge.

3. Thankfully, the ICIG actually knows what the law is. Thankfully, the ICIG follows what the law actually is.

4. Thankfully, the WB was smart enough to go to a good lawyer. Thankfully, the WB's lawyer knows what the law is and wasn't put off by a dumb form.

[old salt]

NJBill writes: "Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: maybe the Trump administration changed the forms in or before May 2018 to add the first hand knowledge requirement in order to try to minimize the number of whistleblower complaints."

Exactly; as plausible or more plausible than the silliness being chucked around by Randy and the Talking Points.

Possible. But I always start with Hanlon's Razor -- incompetence more likely than nefariousness.

Key point. The old form was wrong wrong wrong wrong on what the actual law and requirements are. A stupid PDF form can't over-ride the law.

So:

1. Thankfully, the WB used the old bad form and was not put off by its false and misleading verbiage.

2. The WB said he had first hand knowledge.

3. Thankfully, the ICIG actually knows what the law is. Thankfully, the ICIG follows what the law actually is.

5. Thankfully, the WB's lawyer also knows what the law is and wasn't put off by a dumb form.

Was the Background Information presented to the WB by the IG also wrong & dumb ?
How long were previous WB complaints administered IAW this dumb & wrong guidance ?

[foreverlax]

NJBill writes: "Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: maybe the Trump administration changed the forms in or before May 2018 to add the first hand knowledge requirement in order to try to minimize the number of whistleblower complaints."

Exactly; as plausible or more plausible than the silliness being chucked around by Randy and the Talking Points.

Nice dodge, ignoring what's in the Background Information given to the WB when filing his complaint which you posted for us.

At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the
following language:

In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from
another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge
of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If youthink wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

Thanks for the admin assist. Do you see the conflict with the updated form & thus the questions ?

If you are asking me if the old form was confusing and was therefore updated to removed any confusion...yes that seems to be the case.

The WB got the form he was supposed to be using and checked the boxes that said he had direct knowledge and confirmation from additional sources.