Trump's Russian Collusion

[MDlaxfan76]

The argument is weak because you ignore the part about the fact that a crime needs a victim. In the obvious example here, the owner the car dealership could be a President of Ukraine? If he does not feel he was coerced (your word) than who are you or I to say that he was? We cannot claim he was bribed if he does not feel he was bribed and was willing to put the sign in the lot regardless of the purchase of the cars.

As a proof element, you really can't take Zelensky's one on-the-spot statement as the sole determinative evidence. There's lots of other evidence that the Ukes knew they were being leveraged for many months.

Trump has Zelensky cornered on video and is squeezing him for something personally helpful him -- hey no pressure, right? Zelensky needs to keep bi-partisan USA support. So he's trying to please Trump, but also trying to stay on good terms with non-Trumpers too (since Trump may be gone in 12 months).

Also, recognize that Zelensky is talking publicly AFTER the aid has been released. Most likely interpretation is that Trump had leverage during the summer and early fall and was using it against the Ukes. But when the Giuliani/Trump plan blew up so publicly, Trump lost his leverage and grudgingly had to pay the money over. It is hard to keep running a bribery scheme after it has been publicly disclosed.

The WB disclosures were the best thing that could have happened to Zelensky.

Sounds more like politics than criminal activity, but then this is the criminalization of politics.

Trump released the aid right after Sen Portman called & encouraged him to do it, before the Giuliani/Trump plan blew up so publicly.
Trump had until Sept 30, to release the aid.

Nope, he released the aid after he knew that the WB complaint had been filed and the IG was supporting it coming forward...only then released.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

[old salt]

...but (contrary to law and precedent) that Acting DNI Maguire has failed to furnish the report to Congress. In other words, truck loads of shirt start hitting the fan that precise day. But Trump would have known about the WB report before then.

As it turns out, the WB was already in touch with Congress, which should invalidate his status as an IC WB.

[MDlaxfan76]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

Earlier today I was wondering why folks were having such a difficult time answering a straightforward question which should have been slam dunk easy.

Well, we now know why.

Absolute 'quid pro quo' established, gotta say that extortion or bribery is all ok... done by Trump...

[MDlaxfan76]

...but (contrary to law and precedent) that Acting DNI Maguire has failed to furnish the report to Congress. In other words, truck loads of shirt start hitting the fan that precise day. But Trump would have known about the WB report before then.

As it turns out, the WB was already in touch with Congress, which should invalidate his status as an IC WB.

Boy, ever ready battery 'lawyer' ain't you, Salty?

What a crock.

[old salt]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

Nope. Trump wasn't even in the loop.
Speaking on behalf of WH staffers safeguarding classified matl.

[MDlaxfan76]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

Nope. Trump wasn't even in the loop.
Speaking on behalf of WH staffers safeguarding classified matl.

"safeguarding"

[Typical Lax Dad]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

Nope. Trump wasn't even in the loop.
Speaking on behalf of WH staffers safeguarding classified matl.

I thought Trump determined the classification.

[old salt]

...but (contrary to law and precedent) that Acting DNI Maguire has failed to furnish the report to Congress. In other words, truck loads of shirt start hitting the fan that precise day. But Trump would have known about the WB report before then.

As it turns out, the WB was already in touch with Congress, which should invalidate his status as an IC WB.

Boy, ever ready battery 'lawyer' ain't you, Salty?

What a crock.

Pesky details. We're you among the Catherine Herridge fans applauding her move from FNC to CBS ?

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/re ... r-general/

The anti-Trump whistleblower whose allegations against President Donald Trump sent Congress into an impeachment frenzy concealed his interactions with House Democrats from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) and failed to disclose them as required, Fox News reported on Friday.

According to Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, ICIG Michael Atkinson testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) that the anti-Trump complainant, whose identity has not been made public, did not inform the ICIG in his complaint that he or his team had already contacted Democratic staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House intelligence committee.

The complainant’s failure to disclose his interactions with Schiff or his staff could put him in legal hot water, as the whistleblower form he submitted requires individuals to disclose “other actions you are taking on your disclosure” under penalty of perjury. An entire page of the whistleblower form is dedicated to collecting information about previous disclosures so the ICIG can take appropriate action in response to the complaint.

“I have previously disclosed (or am disclosing) the violations alleged here to (complete all that apply),” the form requires the complainant to attest. The form includes checkboxes for disclosures to other inspectors general, other agencies, the Department of Justice, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Special Counsel, other executive branch departments, Congress and its respective committees, and media. It also includes a separate question asking the complainant to detail those previous disclosures to the ICIG.

The final portion of the whistleblower form requires whistleblowers to attest under penalty of perjury that they have neither misstated nor concealed material facts in their complaints.

“I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint (including any continuation pages) are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,” whistleblowers are required to attest. “I understand that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, a false statement or concealment of a material fact is a criminal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.”

UPDATE: An official confirms the whistleblower failed to disclose prior contacts with House Democrats regarding the allegations of his August 12 complaint. The box in Part 3, Question 1 of the form regarding contacts with Congress or congressional committees was unchecked and left blank. The dates of those contacts were also not disclosed as required. And the specific members and committees that were contacted were likewise not disclosed in the section requiring that information.

[old salt]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

Nope. Trump wasn't even in the loop.
Speaking on behalf of WH staffers safeguarding classified matl.

I thought Trump determined the classification.

Upon what do you base that thought ?

[MDlaxfan76]

...but (contrary to law and precedent) that Acting DNI Maguire has failed to furnish the report to Congress. In other words, truck loads of shirt start hitting the fan that precise day. But Trump would have known about the WB report before then.

As it turns out, the WB was already in touch with Congress, which should invalidate his status as an IC WB.

Boy, ever ready battery 'lawyer' ain't you, Salty?

What a crock.

Pesky details. We're you among the Catherine Herridge fans applauding her move from FNC to CBS ?

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/re ... r-general/

The anti-Trump whistleblower whose allegations against President Donald Trump sent Congress into an impeachment frenzy concealed his interactions with House Democrats from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) and failed to disclose them as required, Fox News reported on Friday.

According to Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, ICIG Michael Atkinson testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) that the anti-Trump complainant, whose identity has not been made public, did not inform the ICIG in his complaint that he or his team had already contacted Democratic staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House intelligence committee.

The complainant’s failure to disclose his interactions with Schiff or his staff could put him in legal hot water, as the whistleblower form he submitted requires individuals to disclose “other actions you are taking on your disclosure” under penalty of perjury. An entire page of the whistleblower form is dedicated to collecting information about previous disclosures so the ICIG can take appropriate action in response to the complaint.

“I have previously disclosed (or am disclosing) the violations alleged here to (complete all that apply),” the form requires the complainant to attest. The form includes checkboxes for disclosures to other inspectors general, other agencies, the Department of Justice, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Special Counsel, other executive branch departments, Congress and its respective committees, and media. It also includes a separate question asking the complainant to detail those previous disclosures to the ICIG.

The final portion of the whistleblower form requires whistleblowers to attest under penalty of perjury that they have neither misstated nor concealed material facts in their complaints.

“I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint (including any continuation pages) are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,” whistleblowers are required to attest. “I understand that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, a false statement or concealment of a material fact is a criminal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.”

UPDATE: An official confirms the whistleblower failed to disclose prior contacts with House Democrats regarding the allegations of his August 12 complaint. The box in Part 3, Question 1 of the form regarding contacts with Congress or congressional committees was unchecked and left blank. The dates of those contacts were also not disclosed as required. And the specific members and committees that were contacted were likewise not disclosed in the section requiring that information.

no, I don't follow Herridge, so had no comment.
I assume she's the gal who resigned from Fox, complaining in apparent disgust "facts matter"?

If the WB has an issue with his filing, that does not remove the WB protections...nor should it.
It could open him up to other liability, though.

[MDlaxfan76]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

Nope. Trump wasn't even in the loop.
Speaking on behalf of WH staffers safeguarding classified matl.

I thought Trump determined the classification.

Upon what do you base that thought ?

I suspect he's just recalling you many times telling us the POTUS can classify anything he wants, at whatever level he wants, and if he discloses classified info to, say, the Russians, that's a 'declassification' that he gets to make all on his lonesome. Problems with that, of course, but I think it's not on point.

Mixing apples and oranges on this one, probably. Probably the specific decision on this particular call (assuming not 100% of calls automatically were put in the NICE server) was made by WH counsel who had more general direction to do so with anything problematic to Trump.

It's most likely that Trump did give a directive, or gave his approval, to one or more of his political appointees, that he wanted embarrassing information put in the NICE server so as to avoid 'leaks' of the truth to Congress or the press/public. Much less likely seems to me than that any non political appointee decided this all on their own.

Time may tell.

[old salt]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

Nope. Trump wasn't even in the loop.
Speaking on behalf of WH staffers safeguarding classified matl.

I thought Trump determined the classification.

Upon what do you base that thought ?

I suspect he's just recalling you many times telling us the POTUS can classify anything he wants, at whatever level he wants, and if he discloses classified info to, say, the Russians, that's a 'declassification' that he gets to make all on his lonesome. Problems with that, of course, but I think it's not on point.

Mixing apples and oranges on this one, probably. Probably the specific decision on this particular call (assuming not 100% of calls automatically were put in the NICE server) was made by WH counsel who had more general direction to do so with anything problematic to Trump.

It's most likely that Trump did give a directive, or gave his approval, to one or more of his political appointees, that he wanted embarrassing information put in the NICE server so as to avoid 'leaks' of the truth to Congress or the press/public. Much less likely seems to me than that any non political appointee decided this all on their own.

Time may tell.

...or he just said "stop the leaks" & let the WH staff figure out how to do it.
Do you think Trump had any idea what the NICE server was ?
He's a renowned detail guy & subject matter expert.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

Nope. Trump wasn't even in the loop.
Speaking on behalf of WH staffers safeguarding classified matl.

I thought Trump determined the classification.

Upon what do you base that thought ?

His spokesman saying he could classify whatever he wants....pretty much.

[old salt]

...but (contrary to law and precedent) that Acting DNI Maguire has failed to furnish the report to Congress. In other words, truck loads of shirt start hitting the fan that precise day. But Trump would have known about the WB report before then.

As it turns out, the WB was already in touch with Congress, which should invalidate his status as an IC WB.

Boy, ever ready battery 'lawyer' ain't you, Salty?

What a crock.

Pesky details. We're you among the Catherine Herridge fans applauding her move from FNC to CBS ?

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/re ... r-general/

The anti-Trump whistleblower whose allegations against President Donald Trump sent Congress into an impeachment frenzy concealed his interactions with House Democrats from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) and failed to disclose them as required, Fox News reported on Friday.

According to Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, ICIG Michael Atkinson testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) that the anti-Trump complainant, whose identity has not been made public, did not inform the ICIG in his complaint that he or his team had already contacted Democratic staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House intelligence committee.

The complainant’s failure to disclose his interactions with Schiff or his staff could put him in legal hot water, as the whistleblower form he submitted requires individuals to disclose “other actions you are taking on your disclosure” under penalty of perjury. An entire page of the whistleblower form is dedicated to collecting information about previous disclosures so the ICIG can take appropriate action in response to the complaint.

“I have previously disclosed (or am disclosing) the violations alleged here to (complete all that apply),” the form requires the complainant to attest. The form includes checkboxes for disclosures to other inspectors general, other agencies, the Department of Justice, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Special Counsel, other executive branch departments, Congress and its respective committees, and media. It also includes a separate question asking the complainant to detail those previous disclosures to the ICIG.

The final portion of the whistleblower form requires whistleblowers to attest under penalty of perjury that they have neither misstated nor concealed material facts in their complaints.

“I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint (including any continuation pages) are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,” whistleblowers are required to attest. “I understand that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, a false statement or concealment of a material fact is a criminal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.”

UPDATE: An official confirms the whistleblower failed to disclose prior contacts with House Democrats regarding the allegations of his August 12 complaint. The box in Part 3, Question 1 of the form regarding contacts with Congress or congressional committees was unchecked and left blank. The dates of those contacts were also not disclosed as required. And the specific members and committees that were contacted were likewise not disclosed in the section requiring that information.

no, I don't follow Herridge, so had no comment.
I assume she's the gal who resigned from Fox, complaining in apparent disgust "facts matter"?

If the WB has an issue with his filing, that does not remove the WB protections...nor should it.
It could open him up to other liability, though.

Sure, they can try him for making a false statement or concealment of a material fact (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001)
...with a bag over his head. Let's criminalize everything.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

Nope. Trump wasn't even in the loop.
Speaking on behalf of WH staffers safeguarding classified matl.

I thought Trump determined the classification.

Upon what do you base that thought ?

I suspect he's just recalling you many times telling us the POTUS can classify anything he wants, at whatever level he wants, and if he discloses classified info to, say, the Russians, that's a 'declassification' that he gets to make all on his lonesome. Problems with that, of course, but I think it's not on point.

Mixing apples and oranges on this one, probably. Probably the specific decision on this particular call (assuming not 100% of calls automatically were put in the NICE server) was made by WH counsel who had more general direction to do so with anything problematic to Trump.

It's most likely that Trump did give a directive, or gave his approval, to one or more of his political appointees, that he wanted embarrassing information put in the NICE server so as to avoid 'leaks' of the truth to Congress or the press/public. Much less likely seems to me than that any non political appointee decided this all on their own.

Time may tell.

...or he just said "stop the leaks" & let the WH staff figure out how to do it.
Do you think Trump had any idea what the NICE server was ?
He's a renowned detail guy & subject matter expert.

“Put it where ain’t nobody gonna fin’ it.” Was probably the order.

[MDlaxfan76]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

Can't you read ? I posted NN's POLITICO article which laid it all out.
It's not unusual -- it happened with several previous foreign leader calls. Possibly all since the leak.

Using the NICE server is just a way to more securely store, limit access, & track access.
It was a Executive decision to store & distribute foreign leader calls via the NICE server.
It was a rational decision, like hand carrying, sign for, eyes only, & using a safe to store paper documents which were being copied & leaked by criminal spies in your work force during inter-office routing.

Classifying these calls S/NF is not over classification (no matter how often afan quotes the motherhood CFR).
They were not even TS, let alone SCI. (recall that you asked about the classification level used)

Yes, I can and do read...much of you say below is not substantiated.

Maybe every single call got the NICE server treatment. Maybe.
I sure as heck don't know, nor do you.

That's the whole point.

Back to speaking on behalf of Trump already?

Nope. Trump wasn't even in the loop.
Speaking on behalf of WH staffers safeguarding classified matl.

I thought Trump determined the classification.

Upon what do you base that thought ?

I suspect he's just recalling you many times telling us the POTUS can classify anything he wants, at whatever level he wants, and if he discloses classified info to, say, the Russians, that's a 'declassification' that he gets to make all on his lonesome. Problems with that, of course, but I think it's not on point.

Mixing apples and oranges on this one, probably. Probably the specific decision on this particular call (assuming not 100% of calls automatically were put in the NICE server) was made by WH counsel who had more general direction to do so with anything problematic to Trump.

It's most likely that Trump did give a directive, or gave his approval, to one or more of his political appointees, that he wanted embarrassing information put in the NICE server so as to avoid 'leaks' of the truth to Congress or the press/public. Much less likely seems to me than that any non political appointee decided this all on their own.

Time may tell.

...or he just said "stop the leaks" & let the WH staff figure out how to do it.
Do you think Trump had any idea what the NICE server was ?
He's a renowned detail guy & subject matter expert.

OHHH, I'm sure he didn't have a clue about the tech...but, yup, I wouldn't be surprised if he told folks to lock them up and keep them away from prying eyes...it's not like he doesn't know what a safe, a vault is...

The key is whether that was ALL conversations or just the ones he would not want Congress or the press/public to see in particular.

My hunch is this wasn't 100%, but hey, it might have been.

[MDlaxfan76]

...but (contrary to law and precedent) that Acting DNI Maguire has failed to furnish the report to Congress. In other words, truck loads of shirt start hitting the fan that precise day. But Trump would have known about the WB report before then.

As it turns out, the WB was already in touch with Congress, which should invalidate his status as an IC WB.

Boy, ever ready battery 'lawyer' ain't you, Salty?

What a crock.

Pesky details. We're you among the Catherine Herridge fans applauding her move from FNC to CBS ?

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/re ... r-general/

The anti-Trump whistleblower whose allegations against President Donald Trump sent Congress into an impeachment frenzy concealed his interactions with House Democrats from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) and failed to disclose them as required, Fox News reported on Friday.

According to Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, ICIG Michael Atkinson testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) that the anti-Trump complainant, whose identity has not been made public, did not inform the ICIG in his complaint that he or his team had already contacted Democratic staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House intelligence committee.

The complainant’s failure to disclose his interactions with Schiff or his staff could put him in legal hot water, as the whistleblower form he submitted requires individuals to disclose “other actions you are taking on your disclosure” under penalty of perjury. An entire page of the whistleblower form is dedicated to collecting information about previous disclosures so the ICIG can take appropriate action in response to the complaint.

“I have previously disclosed (or am disclosing) the violations alleged here to (complete all that apply),” the form requires the complainant to attest. The form includes checkboxes for disclosures to other inspectors general, other agencies, the Department of Justice, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Special Counsel, other executive branch departments, Congress and its respective committees, and media. It also includes a separate question asking the complainant to detail those previous disclosures to the ICIG.

The final portion of the whistleblower form requires whistleblowers to attest under penalty of perjury that they have neither misstated nor concealed material facts in their complaints.

“I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint (including any continuation pages) are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,” whistleblowers are required to attest. “I understand that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, a false statement or concealment of a material fact is a criminal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.”

UPDATE: An official confirms the whistleblower failed to disclose prior contacts with House Democrats regarding the allegations of his August 12 complaint. The box in Part 3, Question 1 of the form regarding contacts with Congress or congressional committees was unchecked and left blank. The dates of those contacts were also not disclosed as required. And the specific members and committees that were contacted were likewise not disclosed in the section requiring that information.

no, I don't follow Herridge, so had no comment.
I assume she's the gal who resigned from Fox, complaining in apparent disgust "facts matter"?

If the WB has an issue with his filing, that does not remove the WB protections...nor should it.
It could open him up to other liability, though.

Sure, they can try him for making a false statement or concealment of a material fact (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001)
...with a bag over his head. Let's criminalize everything.

Yup, the WB aspect needs to be 100% protected. Period.

But if he committed perjury or other violation worth pursuing criminally, that can indeed be done, including without revealing his identity as the WB. The indictment would be for the criminal aspect, but the evidence would be presented under seal, with the approval of both parties of that seal.

ggait or seacoaster or other legal beagles may well correct me.
I just slept at a Holiday Inn once.

[a fan]

Pesky details. We're you among the Catherine Herridge fans applauding her move from FNC to CBS ?


https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/re ... r-general/

The anti-Trump whistleblower whose allegations against President Donald Trump sent Congress into an impeachment frenzy concealed his interactions with House Democrats from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) and failed to disclose them as required, Fox News reported on Friday.

According to Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, ICIG Michael Atkinson testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) that the anti-Trump complainant, whose identity has not been made public, did not inform the ICIG in his complaint that he or his team had already contacted Democratic staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House intelligence committee.

So now following the WB to the letter matters. Gee. What a surprise that the wind has changed direction.

[old salt]

Pesky details. We're you among the Catherine Herridge fans applauding her move from FNC to CBS ?


https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/re ... r-general/

The anti-Trump whistleblower whose allegations against President Donald Trump sent Congress into an impeachment frenzy concealed his interactions with House Democrats from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) and failed to disclose them as required, Fox News reported on Friday.

According to Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, ICIG Michael Atkinson testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) that the anti-Trump complainant, whose identity has not been made public, did not inform the ICIG in his complaint that he or his team had already contacted Democratic staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House intelligence committee.

So now following the WB to the letter matters. Gee. What a surprise that the wind has changed direction.

Tough luck for the WB. Every lapse is now a crime which must be prosecuted.