Trump's Russian Collusion

[ggait]

Do you see the conflict with the updated form & thus the questions ?

The ICIG and the WB's lawyer both know what the law actually says. And both followed what the law actually says.

So what some stupid form does/does not say is irrelevant.

We are a nation of laws after all Salty. Not a nation of pdf forms.

Sheesh!

[old salt]

Do you see the conflict with the updated form & thus the questions ?

The ICIG and the WB's lawyer both know what the law actually says. And both followed what the law actually says.

So what some stupid form does/does not say is irrelevant.

We are a nation of laws after all Salty. Not a nation of pdf forms.

Sheesh!

Was the Background Information presented to the WB also stupid & irrelevant ?
How many previous WB complaints (submitted without expert counsel) were similarly bungled or stifled before they got to the IG ?

[foreverlax]

Do you see the conflict with the updated form & thus the questions ?

The ICIG and the WB's lawyer both know what the law actually says. And both followed what the law actually says.

So what some stupid form does/does not say is irrelevant.

We are a nation of laws after all Salty. Not a nation of pdf forms.

Sheesh!

Was the Background Information presented to the WB also stupid & irrelevant ?
How many previous WB complaints (submitted without expert counsel) were similarly bungled or stifled before they got to the IG ?

What are you referencing when you say "Background Information"?

[njbill]

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 ?

I think that is a fair question and a relevant question, but that by this point it is pretty much only a question for historians to answer down the road.

There are some statements in the WB document that has been released that the WB says are based on his personal knowledge. E.g., the White House officials who described the call to the WB were "deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call." That is his personal observation of their demeanor. Granted the crux of his complaint comes from others, but by now I think the significance of any lack of personal knowledge is largely water under the bridge.

Since there is no applicable first hand knowledge requirement, the lack of any first hand knowledge doesn't disable the WB complaint. Since the ICIG has found that the complaint appeared credible, I think we are past the point of debating whether any lack of first hand knowledge materially undercuts the WB's complaint. Now, if you wish to challenge the ICIG's determination, I suppose that is fair game. But it seems like a heavy lift.

More fundamentally though, we are past the point of the complaint. The complaint and all of the relevant surrounding circumstances are now being investigated by the House. Let's see what they come up with. If at the end of the day, the WB's complaint turns out to be nothing but a bunch of hooey, then Trump won't be impeached. If it turns out to be largely accurate, he may be.

[old salt]

Do you see the conflict with the updated form & thus the questions ?

The ICIG and the WB's lawyer both know what the law actually says. And both followed what the law actually says.

So what some stupid form does/does not say is irrelevant.

We are a nation of laws after all Salty. Not a nation of pdf forms.

Sheesh!

Was the Background Information presented to the WB also stupid & irrelevant ?
How many previous WB complaints (submitted without expert counsel) were similarly bungled or stifled before they got to the IG ?

What are you referencing when you say "Background Information"?

The portion I highlighted in red in the text you graciously posted, at my request.

[njbill]

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.

I hear you, but it seems very strange to me that someone, through incompetence, would add a first hand knowledge requirement to a form when the applicable statute has no such requirement. That is obviously a very significant, and very limiting, requirement. Especially so in the intelligence community where someone at Langley is unlikely to have spoken directly to a field source.

Again, I'd be interested in seeing all prior versions of the form and the effective dates on which each was put into effect. Especially the form that initially added the first hand knowledge requirement.

If that requirement has been in the form from the beginning, maybe nothing nefarious. If it was added in May 2018 by the Trump administration, I'm very suspicious.

[a fan]

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

As I wrote, I don't know.

But (but), if Trump is impeached by both Houses for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", and it turns out Pompeo and Barr knew about it? Or made moves to cover it up? I'd assume they'd get hit for said crimes....whether than means an indictment or removal from office. AG's can get impeached.

I know what they say about assumptions. Again, my point was, Pompeo, Barr, and other officials aren't protected from prosecution the way Trump is.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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.

I hear you, but it seems very strange to me that someone, through incompetence, would add a first hand knowledge requirement to a form when the applicable statute has no such requirement. That is obviously a very significant, and very limiting, requirement. Especially so in the intelligence community where someone at Langley is unlikely to have spoken directly to a field source.

Again, I'd be interested in seeing all prior versions of the form and the effective dates on which each was put into effect. Especially the form that initially added the first hand knowledge requirement.

If that requirement has been in the form from the beginning, maybe nothing nefarious. If it was added in May 2018 by the Trump administration, I'm very suspicious.

Odd how the talking heads were all “parroting no first hand knowledge” at the same time.

[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.

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 ?

You're deliberately missing the point here, again and again and again. Do you think what the President did was wrong? Yes or No.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/no-he ... leblowers/

[a fan]

You're deliberately missing the point here, again and again and again. Do you think what the President did was wrong? Yes or No.

I think you missed Old Salt's post from a day ago, seacoaster.

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

[seacoaster]

You're deliberately missing the point here, again and again and again. Do you think what the President did was wrong? Yes or No.

I think you missed Old Salt's post from a day ago, seacoaster.

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

I did miss that. Thanks. I am almost relieved.

[Jim Malone]

Everyone loves whistleblowers until the whistleblower starts telling the whole story and parties whistleblower supporting folk care for are dragged into also.

Ask the previous TSA and VA whistleblowers if this is true or not.

[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 ?

You're deliberately missing the point here, again and again and again. Do you think what the President did was wrong? Yes or No.

Asked & answered. I'm examining in the actions of the WB & the leakers whose information he acted upon, & whether or not the reporting process was tampered with.

I'm also pointing out how my questions & those of some Congressmen are not diversionary or conspiracy theories.
They were caused by inconsistent guidance provided by the IG's office & call into question whether this WB's complaint was handled differently than previous ones.

[ggait]

They were caused by inconsistent guidance provided by the IG's office & call into question whether this WB's complaint was handled differently than previous ones.

If you insist (with darned little basis) to keep going down this path, then I think you also have to go down the path of NJ Bill's question:

Did the Trumpsters revise the reporting form in 2018 to (i) mis-state the law and (ii) try to stifle potential whistleblower complaints.

To me, that seems like a much more plausible story line than the discredited Federalist hack conspiracy theory.

[RedFromMI]

Trump administration changed code word database to both help minimize leaks and identify any leakers:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/ ... ode-015194

[Trinity]

Lao Tzu would laugh out loud.

Btw. Roger Stone goes on trial next month. Summer of 2016 Wikileaks chats with The Donald featured on the front page every day. A judge Trump didn’t appoint.

[old salt]

They were caused by inconsistent guidance provided by the IG's office & call into question whether this WB's complaint was handled differently than previous ones.

If you insist (with darned little basis) to keep going down this path, then I think you also have to go down the path of NJ Bill's question:

Did the Trumpsters revise the reporting form in 2018 to (i) mis-state the law and (ii) try to stifle potential whistleblower complaints.

To me, that seems like a much more plausible story line than the discredited Federalist hack conspiracy theory.

Let's find out. The fact remains, if previous WB complaints were processed IAW the Background Information provided & the form requiring first hand knowledge, rather than the form allowing hearsay, then the rules were changed for this WB.

How much leeway is the IG granted in establishing procedures? Perhaps a previous IG instituted the first hand knowledge rqmt to prevent the process from being abused or flooded by claims based on gossip.

[Trinity]

Deep Whistle did the homework. We’ve only seen a cover sheet. Btw, Trump’s threats of unrest alone are enough to impeach him now.

[ABV 8.3%]

RRR/ABV, I try not to call my fellow posters names, but I will describe more generally 'wimps' those who go after McCain as if he was actually a dishonorable person, in common cause with the hard right/Trumpists who hate McCain because he stood up to Trump. Gets one's attention, doesn't it?

What is honorable about attacking a High School girls lack of attractiveness? At age 62? He yucked it up and helped Tailhook offenders. dismissed Jim Webbs new GI bill. so much for the enlisted guys So many regrets...imperfections. So many.......

.you're NOT a veteran, so you wouldn't understand.