Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

MDlaxfan writes: "So, when a President and his toadies attack the whistleblower as a spy deserving to be executed or otherwise threaten the wellbeing of the whistleblower, when Trump and his toadies threatens those evaluating the merits of the claims as 'traitors', when Trump and his toadies warn/threaten 'civil war', we are in extremely dangerous but highly predictable territory with this cat. The whistleblower and others have legitimate fear for their lives.

And how can we blame those who use 'leaking' when they have such fears if discovered, yet believe the truth will only be in the open if they take risk?

Thus, when other folks make fun of the process done legally, or seek to discredit those blowing the whistle or those evaluating the claims, it promotes leakers trying to get truth out into the public without their identity being discovered."

Exactly. Good post, as usual.

IF the WB turns out to be legit. As usual you guys are way out over your skis...

"checks and balances" never included "whistleblowers" did it? Seems to me WB is an incredibly slippery slope especially in our hyper-partisan times. The whole concept and any laws associated need to be completely reevaluated IMO.

IG is partisan?

Surely then you'll be accepting the results of IG Horowitz's inquiry.

Just as I accepted the results of the Mueller probe. You believe we should eliminate the WB statute?

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Removing the first hand knowledge rqmt makes the IC's WB process rife for abuse.
Any credible whispering campaign now has an avenue to Congress.

This destroys Exec Priv & will wrap the IC leadership in knots.
DNI & DoJ were right in the way they handled this.
The WB could have still taken it to Congress, in secret, if he didn't like the DNI/DoJ's finding.

the wheels on the bus go round and round …

You never see the number of bogus WB complaints & the turmoil in an organization a clever disgruntled civil servant can generate.
The first test in checking out a complaint is -- does the WB have first hand knowledge ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

MDlaxfan writes: "So, when a President and his toadies attack the whistleblower as a spy deserving to be executed or otherwise threaten the wellbeing of the whistleblower, when Trump and his toadies threatens those evaluating the merits of the claims as 'traitors', when Trump and his toadies warn/threaten 'civil war', we are in extremely dangerous but highly predictable territory with this cat. The whistleblower and others have legitimate fear for their lives.

And how can we blame those who use 'leaking' when they have such fears if discovered, yet believe the truth will only be in the open if they take risk?

Thus, when other folks make fun of the process done legally, or seek to discredit those blowing the whistle or those evaluating the claims, it promotes leakers trying to get truth out into the public without their identity being discovered."

Exactly. Good post, as usual.

IF the WB turns out to be legit. As usual you guys are way out over your skis...

"checks and balances" never included "whistleblowers" did it? Seems to me WB is an incredibly slippery slope especially in our hyper-partisan times. The whole concept and any laws associated need to be completely reevaluated IMO.

IG is partisan?

Surely then you'll be accepting the results of IG Horowitz's inquiry.

Just as I accepted the results of the Mueller probe. You believe we should eliminate the WB statute?

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Removing the first hand knowledge rqmt makes the IC's WB process rife for abuse.
Any credible whispering campaign now has an avenue to Congress.

This destroys Exec Priv & will wrap the IC leadership in knots.
DNI & DoJ were right in the way they handled this.
The WB could have still taken it to Congress, in secret, if he didn't like the DNI/DoJ's finding.

I thought the IG investigated for the veracity of the complaint. So, all of a sudden we have a problem?

[foreverlax]

MDlaxfan writes: "So, when a President and his toadies attack the whistleblower as a spy deserving to be executed or otherwise threaten the wellbeing of the whistleblower, when Trump and his toadies threatens those evaluating the merits of the claims as 'traitors', when Trump and his toadies warn/threaten 'civil war', we are in extremely dangerous but highly predictable territory with this cat. The whistleblower and others have legitimate fear for their lives.

And how can we blame those who use 'leaking' when they have such fears if discovered, yet believe the truth will only be in the open if they take risk?

Thus, when other folks make fun of the process done legally, or seek to discredit those blowing the whistle or those evaluating the claims, it promotes leakers trying to get truth out into the public without their identity being discovered."

Exactly. Good post, as usual.

IF the WB turns out to be legit. As usual you guys are way out over your skis...

"checks and balances" never included "whistleblowers" did it? Seems to me WB is an incredibly slippery slope especially in our hyper-partisan times. The whole concept and any laws associated need to be completely reevaluated IMO.

IG is partisan?

Surely then you'll be accepting the results of IG Horowitz's inquiry.

Just as I accepted the results of the Mueller probe. You believe we should eliminate the WB statute?

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Removing the first hand knowledge rqmt makes the IC's WB process rife for abuse.
Any credible whispering campaign now has an avenue to Congress.

This destroys Exec Priv & will wrap the IC leadership in knots.
DNI & DoJ were right in the way they handled this.
The WB could have still taken it to Congress, in secret, if he didn't like the DNI/DoJ's finding.

Could you link the form you are referencing...seems Grassley has a different view.

“This person appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected. We should always work to respect whistleblowers,” Grassley said. “Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility.”

Grassley said “the distinctions being drawn between first and secondhand knowledge aren’t legal ones.” He did not mention Trump or his attacks on the whistleblower specifically in his statement, instead asserting that “no one should be making judgments or pronouncements without hearing from the whistleblower first and carefully following up on the facts.”

[a fan]

Whistleblower? Annonimity?

This ain't somebody turning in an officious bureaucrat embezzling funds at the Department of Agriculture

This is someone seeking to UNDO the votes of over 60 million Americans—We need to know who this lying bastid is.

So you have no idea who this is. But you're sure he's lying.

You understand that Trump and Giuliani confirmed the WB central complaint, yes?

And while we're on the subject, are you ok with our President personally asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival?

[ggait]

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Yup, there's one reason.

Whoever came up with the prior form didn't know or care what the law was. Period.

The person who did that form maybe was just uninformed about the law. Or maybe they knew the law and was trying to depress potential WB complaints.

Either way, the form was wrong wrong wrong on the law. A freaking form cannot over-ride what the law means/says.

Look Salty, the IC IG (Cornell Law grad and 15 year vet of the DOJ) knows the law. And he's called total BS on this.

P.S. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form.

P.P.S. Do you get it yet, Salty?

[Typical Lax Dad]

MDlaxfan writes: "So, when a President and his toadies attack the whistleblower as a spy deserving to be executed or otherwise threaten the wellbeing of the whistleblower, when Trump and his toadies threatens those evaluating the merits of the claims as 'traitors', when Trump and his toadies warn/threaten 'civil war', we are in extremely dangerous but highly predictable territory with this cat. The whistleblower and others have legitimate fear for their lives.

And how can we blame those who use 'leaking' when they have such fears if discovered, yet believe the truth will only be in the open if they take risk?

Thus, when other folks make fun of the process done legally, or seek to discredit those blowing the whistle or those evaluating the claims, it promotes leakers trying to get truth out into the public without their identity being discovered."

Exactly. Good post, as usual.

IF the WB turns out to be legit. As usual you guys are way out over your skis...

"checks and balances" never included "whistleblowers" did it? Seems to me WB is an incredibly slippery slope especially in our hyper-partisan times. The whole concept and any laws associated need to be completely reevaluated IMO.

IG is partisan?

Surely then you'll be accepting the results of IG Horowitz's inquiry.

Just as I accepted the results of the Mueller probe. You believe we should eliminate the WB statute?

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Removing the first hand knowledge rqmt makes the IC's WB process rife for abuse.
Any credible whispering campaign now has an avenue to Congress.

This destroys Exec Priv & will wrap the IC leadership in knots.
DNI & DoJ were right in the way they handled this.
The WB could have still taken it to Congress, in secret, if he didn't like the DNI/DoJ's finding.

the wheels on the bus go round and round …

You never see the number of bogus WB complaints & the turmoil in an organization a clever disgruntled civil servant can generate.
The first test in checking out a complaint is -- does the WB have first hand knowledge ?

My next door neighbor growing up never saw the guy banging his wife while he was at work.... someone told him....

[old salt]

MDlaxfan writes: "So, when a President and his toadies attack the whistleblower as a spy deserving to be executed or otherwise threaten the wellbeing of the whistleblower, when Trump and his toadies threatens those evaluating the merits of the claims as 'traitors', when Trump and his toadies warn/threaten 'civil war', we are in extremely dangerous but highly predictable territory with this cat. The whistleblower and others have legitimate fear for their lives.

And how can we blame those who use 'leaking' when they have such fears if discovered, yet believe the truth will only be in the open if they take risk?

Thus, when other folks make fun of the process done legally, or seek to discredit those blowing the whistle or those evaluating the claims, it promotes leakers trying to get truth out into the public without their identity being discovered."

Exactly. Good post, as usual.

IF the WB turns out to be legit. As usual you guys are way out over your skis...

"checks and balances" never included "whistleblowers" did it? Seems to me WB is an incredibly slippery slope especially in our hyper-partisan times. The whole concept and any laws associated need to be completely reevaluated IMO.

IG is partisan?

Surely then you'll be accepting the results of IG Horowitz's inquiry.

Just as I accepted the results of the Mueller probe. You believe we should eliminate the WB statute?

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Removing the first hand knowledge rqmt makes the IC's WB process rife for abuse.
Any credible whispering campaign now has an avenue to Congress.

This destroys Exec Priv & will wrap the IC leadership in knots.
DNI & DoJ were right in the way they handled this.
The WB could have still taken it to Congress, in secret, if he didn't like the DNI/DoJ's finding.

Could you link the form you are referencing...seems Grassley has a different view.

“This person appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected. We should always work to respect whistleblowers,” Grassley said. “Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility.”

Grassley said “the distinctions being drawn between first and secondhand knowledge aren’t legal ones.” He did not mention Trump or his attacks on the whistleblower specifically in his statement, instead asserting that “no one should be making judgments or pronouncements without hearing from the whistleblower first and carefully following up on the facts.”

I can't find samples of the forms, but the Federalist article has screen shots of the applicable portion of both forms.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/in ... knowledge/

In formulating the Background Info handout & the old form, the IC IG was exercising his management prerogative by including the first hand rqmt.
It's still TBD if the previous IG who established that rqmt was acting based on nefarious, or practical reasons, & within his discretionary authority.

[ABV 8.3%]

I just read an "interesting" piece on the impeachment process that was anything but reassuring. It credibly laid out the path of this process:

1) house votes to impeach

2) senate does not

3) Trump wins the election on the following points: a disillusioned Dem base, a massively energized deplorable base that sees the entire process as a witch-hunt (anyone see the trump ads?)

4) Trump enters his second term knowing that there is no power that can stop him, because the impeachment process was "abused" (the message of his re-election campaign) and now is rendered flaccid.

5) We enter the era of all-powerful President.

Frankly this entire process has been long coming. The politicization of the courts, the BS impeachment of Clinton, the demonizing of the other party, Congress shirking it's duties and outsourcing its war-powers to the WH... And then it really got its legs under Obama when he went on an executive orders spree. And now Trump has and is truly testing the boundaries of power and our patience to be rear-ended, over and over and over.

Hillary will save us all........October surprise coming soon.

[foreverlax]

MDlaxfan writes: "So, when a President and his toadies attack the whistleblower as a spy deserving to be executed or otherwise threaten the wellbeing of the whistleblower, when Trump and his toadies threatens those evaluating the merits of the claims as 'traitors', when Trump and his toadies warn/threaten 'civil war', we are in extremely dangerous but highly predictable territory with this cat. The whistleblower and others have legitimate fear for their lives.

And how can we blame those who use 'leaking' when they have such fears if discovered, yet believe the truth will only be in the open if they take risk?

Thus, when other folks make fun of the process done legally, or seek to discredit those blowing the whistle or those evaluating the claims, it promotes leakers trying to get truth out into the public without their identity being discovered."

Exactly. Good post, as usual.

IF the WB turns out to be legit. As usual you guys are way out over your skis...

"checks and balances" never included "whistleblowers" did it? Seems to me WB is an incredibly slippery slope especially in our hyper-partisan times. The whole concept and any laws associated need to be completely reevaluated IMO.

IG is partisan?

Surely then you'll be accepting the results of IG Horowitz's inquiry.

Just as I accepted the results of the Mueller probe. You believe we should eliminate the WB statute?

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Removing the first hand knowledge rqmt makes the IC's WB process rife for abuse.
Any credible whispering campaign now has an avenue to Congress.

This destroys Exec Priv & will wrap the IC leadership in knots.
DNI & DoJ were right in the way they handled this.
The WB could have still taken it to Congress, in secret, if he didn't like the DNI/DoJ's finding.

Could you link the form you are referencing...seems Grassley has a different view.

“This person appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected. We should always work to respect whistleblowers,” Grassley said. “Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility.”

Grassley said “the distinctions being drawn between first and secondhand knowledge aren’t legal ones.” He did not mention Trump or his attacks on the whistleblower specifically in his statement, instead asserting that “no one should be making judgments or pronouncements without hearing from the whistleblower first and carefully following up on the facts.”

I can't find samples of the forms, but the Federalist article has screen shots of the applicable portion of both forms.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/in ... knowledge/

In formulating the Background Info handout & the old form, the IC IG was exercising his management prerogative by including the first hand rqmt.
It's still TBD if the previous IG who established that rqmt was acting based on nefarious, or practical reasons, & within his discretionary authority.

Have to push back some...there was never any requirement, by law, that the WB MUST have first hand knowledge.

Maybe this is what you are alluding to -

But as Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, pointed out, even the previous version shown above doesn’t say there was a “requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.” The law has never required them to do so.

Sanchez pointed out that the form pictured above contains a “description of the Inspector General’s (IG) standard for making a credibility determination, as required by statute, within 14 days of the submission of a complaint. According to that guidance, the IG would not make a finding of credibility, and thus transmit the complaint to the [Director of National Intelligence], unless the DNI was in possession of direct evidence supporting the claim.”

It does not say, Sanchez continued, “that whistleblowers may not submit reports based on secondhand knowledge, but rather that such reports will not be escalated to the DNI unless the IG can obtain more.”

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whist ... knowledge/

[Typical Lax Dad]

I just read an "interesting" piece on the impeachment process that was anything but reassuring. It credibly laid out the path of this process:

1) house votes to impeach

2) senate does not

3) Trump wins the election on the following points: a disillusioned Dem base, a massively energized deplorable base that sees the entire process as a witch-hunt (anyone see the trump ads?)

4) Trump enters his second term knowing that there is no power that can stop him, because the impeachment process was "abused" (the message of his re-election campaign) and now is rendered flaccid.

5) We enter the era of all-powerful President.

Frankly this entire process has been long coming. The politicization of the courts, the BS impeachment of Clinton, the demonizing of the other party, Congress shirking it's duties and outsourcing its war-powers to the WH... And then it really got its legs under Obama when he went on an executive orders spree. And now Trump has and is truly testing the boundaries of power and our patience to be rear-ended, over and over and over.

Hillary will save us all........October surprise coming soon.

Fixated

[seacoaster]

“He was mentioned 30 times in the whistle-blower’s report. That’s 29 times too many. I mean, you know you’re in trouble if you control-F your name in a whistle-blower’s report and the screen lights up like a motel bed under a black light.”

Trevor Noah, on the probability of Giuliani being subpoenaed.

[old salt]

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Yup, there's one reason.

Whoever came up with the prior form didn't know or care what the law was. Period.

The person who did that form maybe was just uninformed about the law. Or maybe they knew the law and was trying to depress potential WB complaints.

Either way, the form was wrong wrong wrong on the law. A freaking form cannot over-ride what the law means/says.

Look Salty, the IC IG (Cornell Law grad and 15 year vet of the DOJ) knows the law. And he's called total BS on this.

P.S. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form. This WB used the old/bad form.

P.P.S. Do you get it yet, Salty?

Yeah I get it. From a practical point of view, I don't agree that the old form was a bad form.
I'd like to hear the defense of the old form from the previous IG who implemented it.
Congress should consider it too when they decide how intrusive they make their oversight role,
& for this law, maybe SCOTUS should decide if it's Congressional overreach.

[old salt]

MDlaxfan writes: "So, when a President and his toadies attack the whistleblower as a spy deserving to be executed or otherwise threaten the wellbeing of the whistleblower, when Trump and his toadies threatens those evaluating the merits of the claims as 'traitors', when Trump and his toadies warn/threaten 'civil war', we are in extremely dangerous but highly predictable territory with this cat. The whistleblower and others have legitimate fear for their lives.

And how can we blame those who use 'leaking' when they have such fears if discovered, yet believe the truth will only be in the open if they take risk?

Thus, when other folks make fun of the process done legally, or seek to discredit those blowing the whistle or those evaluating the claims, it promotes leakers trying to get truth out into the public without their identity being discovered."

Exactly. Good post, as usual.

IF the WB turns out to be legit. As usual you guys are way out over your skis...

"checks and balances" never included "whistleblowers" did it? Seems to me WB is an incredibly slippery slope especially in our hyper-partisan times. The whole concept and any laws associated need to be completely reevaluated IMO.

IG is partisan?

Surely then you'll be accepting the results of IG Horowitz's inquiry.

Just as I accepted the results of the Mueller probe. You believe we should eliminate the WB statute?

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Removing the first hand knowledge rqmt makes the IC's WB process rife for abuse.
Any credible whispering campaign now has an avenue to Congress.

This destroys Exec Priv & will wrap the IC leadership in knots.
DNI & DoJ were right in the way they handled this.
The WB could have still taken it to Congress, in secret, if he didn't like the DNI/DoJ's finding.

the wheels on the bus go round and round …

You never see the number of bogus WB complaints & the turmoil in an organization a clever disgruntled civil servant can generate.
The first test in checking out a complaint is -- does the WB have first hand knowledge ?

My next door neighbor growing up never saw the guy banging his wife while he was at work.... someone told him....

Did you fall out of the tree watching. Clearly it impacted you at a formative age. Seek therapy.

[CU88]

I just read an "interesting" piece on the impeachment process that was anything but reassuring. It credibly laid out the path of this process:

1) house votes to impeach

2) senate does not

3) Trump wins the election on the following points: a disillusioned Dem base, a massively energized deplorable base that sees the entire process as a witch-hunt (anyone see the trump ads?)

4) Trump enters his second term knowing that there is no power that can stop him, because the impeachment process was "abused" (the message of his re-election campaign) and now is rendered flaccid.

5) We enter the era of all-powerful President.

Frankly this entire process has been long coming. The politicization of the courts, the BS impeachment of Clinton, the demonizing of the other party, Congress shirking it's duties and outsourcing its war-powers to the WH... And then it really got its legs under Obama when he went on an executive orders spree. And now Trump has and is truly testing the boundaries of power and our patience to be rear-ended, over and over and over.

Hillary will save us all........October surprise coming soon.

Will your hero get another bone spur deferral when the next Civil War happens...

[CU88]

MDlaxfan writes: "So, when a President and his toadies attack the whistleblower as a spy deserving to be executed or otherwise threaten the wellbeing of the whistleblower, when Trump and his toadies threatens those evaluating the merits of the claims as 'traitors', when Trump and his toadies warn/threaten 'civil war', we are in extremely dangerous but highly predictable territory with this cat. The whistleblower and others have legitimate fear for their lives.

And how can we blame those who use 'leaking' when they have such fears if discovered, yet believe the truth will only be in the open if they take risk?

Thus, when other folks make fun of the process done legally, or seek to discredit those blowing the whistle or those evaluating the claims, it promotes leakers trying to get truth out into the public without their identity being discovered."

Exactly. Good post, as usual.

IF the WB turns out to be legit. As usual you guys are way out over your skis...

"checks and balances" never included "whistleblowers" did it? Seems to me WB is an incredibly slippery slope especially in our hyper-partisan times. The whole concept and any laws associated need to be completely reevaluated IMO.

IG is partisan?

Surely then you'll be accepting the results of IG Horowitz's inquiry.

Just as I accepted the results of the Mueller probe. You believe we should eliminate the WB statute?

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Removing the first hand knowledge rqmt makes the IC's WB process rife for abuse.
Any credible whispering campaign now has an avenue to Congress.

This destroys Exec Priv & will wrap the IC leadership in knots.
DNI & DoJ were right in the way they handled this.
The WB could have still taken it to Congress, in secret, if he didn't like the DNI/DoJ's finding.

the wheels on the bus go round and round …

You never see the number of bogus WB complaints & the turmoil in an organization a clever disgruntled civil servant can generate.
The first test in checking out a complaint is -- does the WB have first hand knowledge ?

Thank goodness Forrest Gump didn't have to do so much paperwork when he called into complain about the lights on in that dark room at the Watergate!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmnSMlAstMc

[Typical Lax Dad]

MDlaxfan writes: "So, when a President and his toadies attack the whistleblower as a spy deserving to be executed or otherwise threaten the wellbeing of the whistleblower, when Trump and his toadies threatens those evaluating the merits of the claims as 'traitors', when Trump and his toadies warn/threaten 'civil war', we are in extremely dangerous but highly predictable territory with this cat. The whistleblower and others have legitimate fear for their lives.

And how can we blame those who use 'leaking' when they have such fears if discovered, yet believe the truth will only be in the open if they take risk?

Thus, when other folks make fun of the process done legally, or seek to discredit those blowing the whistle or those evaluating the claims, it promotes leakers trying to get truth out into the public without their identity being discovered."

Exactly. Good post, as usual.

IF the WB turns out to be legit. As usual you guys are way out over your skis...

"checks and balances" never included "whistleblowers" did it? Seems to me WB is an incredibly slippery slope especially in our hyper-partisan times. The whole concept and any laws associated need to be completely reevaluated IMO.

IG is partisan?

Surely then you'll be accepting the results of IG Horowitz's inquiry.

Just as I accepted the results of the Mueller probe. You believe we should eliminate the WB statute?

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Removing the first hand knowledge rqmt makes the IC's WB process rife for abuse.
Any credible whispering campaign now has an avenue to Congress.

This destroys Exec Priv & will wrap the IC leadership in knots.
DNI & DoJ were right in the way they handled this.
The WB could have still taken it to Congress, in secret, if he didn't like the DNI/DoJ's finding.

the wheels on the bus go round and round …

You never see the number of bogus WB complaints & the turmoil in an organization a clever disgruntled civil servant can generate.
The first test in checking out a complaint is -- does the WB have first hand knowledge ?

My next door neighbor growing up never saw the guy banging his wife while he was at work.... someone told him....

Did you fall out of the tree watching. Clearly it impacted you at a formative age. Seek therapy.

No. Good thing. My neighbor killed his wife. The three little kids came over while the police were going through the house. Father committed suicide a few weeks later. I wish I were watching that! He initially claimed she “committed suicide”. Police were closing in. Anyway, with having to have first hand knowledge, you may be a “but she told me she had her panties on” type of guy.

[old salt]

MDlaxfan writes: "So, when a President and his toadies attack the whistleblower as a spy deserving to be executed or otherwise threaten the wellbeing of the whistleblower, when Trump and his toadies threatens those evaluating the merits of the claims as 'traitors', when Trump and his toadies warn/threaten 'civil war', we are in extremely dangerous but highly predictable territory with this cat. The whistleblower and others have legitimate fear for their lives.

And how can we blame those who use 'leaking' when they have such fears if discovered, yet believe the truth will only be in the open if they take risk?

Thus, when other folks make fun of the process done legally, or seek to discredit those blowing the whistle or those evaluating the claims, it promotes leakers trying to get truth out into the public without their identity being discovered."

Exactly. Good post, as usual.

IF the WB turns out to be legit. As usual you guys are way out over your skis...

"checks and balances" never included "whistleblowers" did it? Seems to me WB is an incredibly slippery slope especially in our hyper-partisan times. The whole concept and any laws associated need to be completely reevaluated IMO.

IG is partisan?

Surely then you'll be accepting the results of IG Horowitz's inquiry.

Just as I accepted the results of the Mueller probe. You believe we should eliminate the WB statute?

There's a reason the Background Info & the complaint form previously posted on the IC IG website included the rqmt for first hand knowledge before a complaint can be forwarded to Congress.

Removing the first hand knowledge rqmt makes the IC's WB process rife for abuse.
Any credible whispering campaign now has an avenue to Congress.

This destroys Exec Priv & will wrap the IC leadership in knots.
DNI & DoJ were right in the way they handled this.
The WB could have still taken it to Congress, in secret, if he didn't like the DNI/DoJ's finding.

the wheels on the bus go round and round …

You never see the number of bogus WB complaints & the turmoil in an organization a clever disgruntled civil servant can generate.
The first test in checking out a complaint is -- does the WB have first hand knowledge ?

My next door neighbor growing up never saw the guy banging his wife while he was at work.... someone told him....

Did you fall out of the tree watching. Clearly it impacted you at a formative age. Seek therapy.

No. Good thing. My neighbor killed his wife. The three little kids came over while the police were going through the house. Father committed suicide a few weeks later. I wish I were watching that! He initially claimed she “committed suicide”. Police were closing in. Anyway, with having to have first hand knowledge, you may be a “but she told me she had her panties on” type of guy.

It clearly scarred you. Now we know why you're so concerned about what's going on in other peoples' bedrooms. Therapy is definitely in order.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Carry on

[runrussellrun]

[


My next door neighbor growing up never saw the guy banging his wife while he was at work.... someone told him....

Did you fall out of the tree watching. Clearly it impacted you at a formative age. Seek therapy.

No. Good thing. My neighbor killed his wife. The three little kids came over while the police were going through the house. Father committed suicide a few weeks later. I wish I were watching that! He initially claimed she “committed suicide”. Police were closing in. Anyway, with having to have first hand knowledge, you may be a “but she told me she had her panties on” type of guy.

[/quote][/quote]

Isn't killing a cheating wife still legal in some states?

[Typical Lax Dad]

[


My next door neighbor growing up never saw the guy banging his wife while he was at work.... someone told him....

Did you fall out of the tree watching. Clearly it impacted you at a formative age. Seek therapy.

No. Good thing. My neighbor killed his wife. The three little kids came over while the police were going through the house. Father committed suicide a few weeks later. I wish I were watching that! He initially claimed she “committed suicide”. Police were closing in. Anyway, with having to have first hand knowledge, you may be a “but she told me she had her panties on” type of guy.

[/quote]

Isn't killing a cheating wife still legal in some states?
[/quote]

Mumbai?