They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fishy how those employees with DIRECT knowledge of perceived wrongdoing failed to blow their whistle. Why?

Actually they tried and their reports were squashed by the NSC counsel and the DOJ.

1. Who exactly tried?
2. Let’s see those supposed reports.

The CIA IG and the Intel Community IG. Have you been following this at all?

The CIA Inspector General didn't have first hand knowledge, though, did she?

The CIA IG wasn't acting as a whistleblower, she was acting as an IG. Obviously.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481[url]

Yep. People, if you are deeply ignorant about how this works, educate yourself before forming an opinion. Otherwise you just sound like an idiot.

Woah, no need to be rude.

Reread the above nested posts.

In response to a question about why people with first hand information didn't "blow their whistle", the answer was that they tried to but the reports were squashed.

As you note, the CIA IG did not have first hand knowledge; she was responding and reporting in her role as IG.

I'm asking someone to follow up to the original comment -- did someone with firsthand knowledge file a report that was subsequently squashed?

I think not. And that is not a good thing for this country. The fact that so many people knew about Trump's Ukraine "diplomacy", quietly observing that it was morally wrong and a threat to national security but doing NOTHING to stop it is disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fishy how those employees with DIRECT knowledge of perceived wrongdoing failed to blow their whistle. Why?

Actually they tried and their reports were squashed by the NSC counsel and the DOJ.

1. Who exactly tried?
2. Let’s see those supposed reports.

The CIA IG and the Intel Community IG. Have you been following this at all?

The CIA Inspector General didn't have first hand knowledge, though, did she?

The CIA IG wasn't acting as a whistleblower, she was acting as an IG. Obviously.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481[url]

Yep. People, if you are deeply ignorant about how this works, educate yourself before forming an opinion. Otherwise you just sound like an idiot.

Woah, no need to be rude.

Reread the above nested posts.

In response to a question about why people with first hand information didn't "blow their whistle", the answer was that they tried to but the reports were squashed.

As you note, the CIA IG did not have first hand knowledge; she was responding and reporting in her role as IG.

I'm asking someone to follow up to the original comment -- did someone with firsthand knowledge file a report that was subsequently squashed?

What's fishy is why you are obsessed with firsthand information, but seem intent on learning about current events third-hand. Do yourself a favor. Google it so at least your source is second-hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fishy how those employees with DIRECT knowledge of perceived wrongdoing failed to blow their whistle. Why?

Actually they tried and their reports were squashed by the NSC counsel and the DOJ.

1. Who exactly tried?
2. Let’s see those supposed reports.

The CIA IG and the Intel Community IG. Have you been following this at all?

The CIA Inspector General didn't have first hand knowledge, though, did she?

The CIA IG wasn't acting as a whistleblower, she was acting as an IG. Obviously.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481[url]

Yep. People, if you are deeply ignorant about how this works, educate yourself before forming an opinion. Otherwise you just sound like an idiot.

Woah, no need to be rude.

Reread the above nested posts.

In response to a question about why people with first hand information didn't "blow their whistle", the answer was that they tried to but the reports were squashed.

As you note, the CIA IG did not have first hand knowledge; she was responding and reporting in her role as IG.

I'm asking someone to follow up to the original comment -- did someone with firsthand knowledge file a report that was subsequently squashed?

Anyone??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I think not. And that is not a good thing for this country. The fact that so many people knew about Trump's Ukraine "diplomacy", quietly observing that it was morally wrong and a threat to national security but doing NOTHING to stop it is disturbing.

Well we know Bolton didn't do "nothing" -- he allowed the payments to Ukraine to go through, and then resigned a week later, right?

If he did that against Trump's wishes, then that is something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fishy how those employees with DIRECT knowledge of perceived wrongdoing failed to blow their whistle. Why?

Actually they tried and their reports were squashed by the NSC counsel and the DOJ.

1. Who exactly tried?
2. Let’s see those supposed reports.

The CIA IG and the Intel Community IG. Have you been following this at all?

The CIA Inspector General didn't have first hand knowledge, though, did she?

The CIA IG wasn't acting as a whistleblower, she was acting as an IG. Obviously.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481[url]

Yep. People, if you are deeply ignorant about how this works, educate yourself before forming an opinion. Otherwise you just sound like an idiot.

Woah, no need to be rude.

Reread the above nested posts.

In response to a question about why people with first hand information didn't "blow their whistle", the answer was that they tried to but the reports were squashed.

As you note, the CIA IG did not have first hand knowledge; she was responding and reporting in her role as IG.

I'm asking someone to follow up to the original comment -- did someone with firsthand knowledge file a report that was subsequently squashed?

What's fishy is why you are obsessed with firsthand information, but seem intent on learning about current events third-hand. Do yourself a favor. Google it so at least your source is second-hand.

I did Google this question, and came up blank.

(For the record, I am not the annoying 'where's the first hand evidence" poster. I'm the poster who has been repeating "the whistleblower did everything correctly".)

However, in response to the annoying 'where's the firsthand evidence poster" someone posted that there HAvE been people with firsthand evidence who attempted to report it, but they were rebuffed.

I am just asking that person to share who that was. They came back with the CIA IG, but she didn't have firsthand evidence.

I *think* the person stating that people with first hand evidence have tried to report but have been rebuffed is incorrect. I did try to find examples of that happening, but have failed to do so. If it were public knowledge, either I would have found it, or someone here would have posted it.

It's OK to say "Sorry, I was wrong about that". Telling me to Google it myself isn't very useful. If you have information, share it.

[Anonymous]

The people with firsthand knowledge—Hill, Sondland, Taylor—are coming forward now!

Are you asking why they didn’t come forward earlier? I have no idea, but I’m not sure what you think it proves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people with firsthand knowledge—Hill, Sondland, Taylor—are coming forward now!

Are you asking why they didn’t come forward earlier? I have no idea, but I’m not sure what you think it proves.

I don’t think I could be any clearer about what I am asking.
Someone (not me) asked why people with firsthand knowledge didn’t report it.

Someone responded “they did report it; it was squashed”

The example given was the CIA IG . But she did not have firsthand information.

My question is to the person who said “they did report it; it was squashed”: did you just make a mistake? Or did someone with firsthand information make a report and it was squashed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people with firsthand knowledge—Hill, Sondland, Taylor—are coming forward now!

Are you asking why they didn’t come forward earlier? I have no idea, but I’m not sure what you think it proves.

I don’t think I could be any clearer about what I am asking.
Someone (not me) asked why people with firsthand knowledge didn’t report it.

Someone responded “they did report it; it was squashed”

The example given was the CIA IG . But she did not have firsthand information.

My question is to the person who said “they did report it; it was squashed”: did you just make a mistake? Or did someone with firsthand information make a report and it was squashed?

Please stop. You're completely ignoring the reply I made a couple of days ago, copied below.

Fiona Hill and Vindman both testified they reported their concerns, and Eisenberg did nothing. I believe the State Dept people did too, but I don't have time to find that right now.

And the WB himself first went to the CIA General Counsel who sent a criminal referral to DOJ, which also was squashed.


*******

In July, Fiona Hill went to Eisenberg on Bolton's orders after the meeting with Ukrainians in the WH:

Hill testified that when she recounted the conversation with Sondland to Bolton, he told her to report it to NSC counsel John Eisenberg immediately, saying, "and he told me, and this is a direct quote from Ambassador Bolton: You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this, and you go and tell him what you've heard and what I've said."

https://www.businessinsider.com/fiona-hill-testimony-details-stunning-meeting-john-bolton-stormed-out-2019-11

Lt Col Vindman went to Eisenberg after the phone call:

National Security Council’s director for Ukraine, told lawmakers that he went to the lawyer, John Eisenberg, to register his concerns about the call, in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, according to a person in the room for Vindman’s deposition on Tuesday.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated Army officer who served as the National Security Council’s director for Ukraine, told lawmakers that he went to the lawyer, John Eisenberg, to register his concerns about the call, in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, according to a person in the room for Vindman’s deposition on Tuesday.

Eisenberg recorded Vindman’s complaints in notes on a yellow legal pad, then conferred with his deputy Michael Ellis about how to handle the conversation because it was clearly “sensitive,” Vindman testified. The lawyers then decided to move the record of the call into the NSC’s top-secret codeword system—a server normally used to store highly classified material that only a small group of officials can access.

Vindman did not consider the move itself as evidence of a cover-up, according to a person familiar with his testimony. But he said he became disturbed when, a few days later, Eisenberg instructed him not to tell anyone about the call—especially because it was Vindman’s job to coordinate the interagency process with regard to Ukraine policy.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/01/white-house-vindman-ukraine-call-063892

The whistleblower went to the CIA lawyer first and when she passed along the concerns about the phone call to Eisenberg and made a criminal referral to DOJ.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people with firsthand knowledge—Hill, Sondland, Taylor—are coming forward now!

Are you asking why they didn’t come forward earlier? I have no idea, but I’m not sure what you think it proves.

I don’t think I could be any clearer about what I am asking.
Someone (not me) asked why people with firsthand knowledge didn’t report it.

Someone responded “they did report it; it was squashed”

The example given was the CIA IG . But she did not have firsthand information.

My question is to the person who said “they did report it; it was squashed”: did you just make a mistake? Or did someone with firsthand information make a report and it was squashed?

Why does it matter, if these people are coming forward now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people with firsthand knowledge—Hill, Sondland, Taylor—are coming forward now!

Are you asking why they didn’t come forward earlier? I have no idea, but I’m not sure what you think it proves.

I don’t think I could be any clearer about what I am asking.
Someone (not me) asked why people with firsthand knowledge didn’t report it.

Someone responded “they did report it; it was squashed”

The example given was the CIA IG . But she did not have firsthand information.

My question is to the person who said “they did report it; it was squashed”: did you just make a mistake? Or did someone with firsthand information make a report and it was squashed?

Crickets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people with firsthand knowledge—Hill, Sondland, Taylor—are coming forward now!

Are you asking why they didn’t come forward earlier? I have no idea, but I’m not sure what you think it proves.

I don’t think I could be any clearer about what I am asking.
Someone (not me) asked why people with firsthand knowledge didn’t report it.

Someone responded “they did report it; it was squashed”

The example given was the CIA IG . But she did not have firsthand information.

My question is to the person who said “they did report it; it was squashed”: did you just make a mistake? Or did someone with firsthand information make a report and it was squashed?

Crickets.

(Third time I'm posting my response in this thread. Also, I was reminded today that Tim Morrison from the NSC also reported his concerns about the phone call to the NSC counsel.)

Please stop. You're completely ignoring the reply I made a couple of days ago, copied below.

Fiona Hill and Vindman both testified they reported their concerns, and Eisenberg did nothing. I believe the State Dept people did too, but I don't have time to find that right now.

And the WB himself first went to the CIA General Counsel who sent a criminal referral to DOJ, which also was squashed.


*******

In July, Fiona Hill went to Eisenberg on Bolton's orders after the meeting with Ukrainians in the WH:

Hill testified that when she recounted the conversation with Sondland to Bolton, he told her to report it to NSC counsel John Eisenberg immediately, saying, "and he told me, and this is a direct quote from Ambassador Bolton: You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this, and you go and tell him what you've heard and what I've said."

https://www.businessinsider.com/fiona-hill-testimony-details-stunning-meeting-john-bolton-stormed-out-2019-11

Lt Col Vindman went to Eisenberg after the phone call:

National Security Council’s director for Ukraine, told lawmakers that he went to the lawyer, John Eisenberg, to register his concerns about the call, in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, according to a person in the room for Vindman’s deposition on Tuesday.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated Army officer who served as the National Security Council’s director for Ukraine, told lawmakers that he went to the lawyer, John Eisenberg, to register his concerns about the call, in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, according to a person in the room for Vindman’s deposition on Tuesday.

Eisenberg recorded Vindman’s complaints in notes on a yellow legal pad, then conferred with his deputy Michael Ellis about how to handle the conversation because it was clearly “sensitive,” Vindman testified. The lawyers then decided to move the record of the call into the NSC’s top-secret codeword system—a server normally used to store highly classified material that only a small group of officials can access.

Vindman did not consider the move itself as evidence of a cover-up, according to a person familiar with his testimony. But he said he became disturbed when, a few days later, Eisenberg instructed him not to tell anyone about the call—especially because it was Vindman’s job to coordinate the interagency process with regard to Ukraine policy.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/01/white-house-vindman-ukraine-call-063892

The whistleblower went to the CIA lawyer first and when she passed along the concerns about the phone call to Eisenberg and made a criminal referral to DOJ.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people with firsthand knowledge—Hill, Sondland, Taylor—are coming forward now!

Are you asking why they didn’t come forward earlier? I have no idea, but I’m not sure what you think it proves.

I don’t think I could be any clearer about what I am asking.
Someone (not me) asked why people with firsthand knowledge didn’t report it.

Someone responded “they did report it; it was squashed”

The example given was the CIA IG . But she did not have firsthand information.

My question is to the person who said “they did report it; it was squashed”: did you just make a mistake? Or did someone with firsthand information make a report and it was squashed?

Crickets.

Did you miss 9:29 and the prior answers too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fishy how those employees with DIRECT knowledge of perceived wrongdoing failed to blow their whistle. Why?

Actually they tried and their reports were squashed by the NSC counsel and the DOJ.

1. Who exactly tried?
2. Let’s see those supposed reports.

The CIA IG and the Intel Community IG. Have you been following this at all?

The CIA Inspector General didn't have first hand knowledge, though, did she?

The CIA IG wasn't acting as a whistleblower, she was acting as an IG. Obviously.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481[url]

Yep. People, if you are deeply ignorant about how this works, educate yourself before forming an opinion. Otherwise you just sound like an idiot.

Woah, no need to be rude.

Reread the above nested posts.

In response to a question about why people with first hand information didn't "blow their whistle", the answer was that they tried to but the reports were squashed.

As you note, the CIA IG did not have first hand knowledge; she was responding and reporting in her role as IG.

I'm asking someone to follow up to the original comment -- did someone with firsthand knowledge file a report that was subsequently squashed?

What's fishy is why you are obsessed with firsthand information, but seem intent on learning about current events third-hand. Do yourself a favor. Google it so at least your source is second-hand.

I did Google this question, and came up blank.

(For the record, I am not the annoying 'where's the first hand evidence" poster. I'm the poster who has been repeating "the whistleblower did everything correctly".)

However, in response to the annoying 'where's the firsthand evidence poster" someone posted that there HAvE been people with firsthand evidence who attempted to report it, but they were rebuffed.

I am just asking that person to share who that was. They came back with the CIA IG, but she didn't have firsthand evidence.

I *think* the person stating that people with first hand evidence have tried to report but have been rebuffed is incorrect. I did try to find examples of that happening, but have failed to do so. If it were public knowledge, either I would have found it, or someone here would have posted it.

It's OK to say "Sorry, I was wrong about that". Telling me to Google it myself isn't very useful. If you have information, share it.

Exactly.