Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

This is odd. And, this tweet from the reporter.....

Sean Davis
@seanmdav
I talked to a DNI official and asked when these revisions were made and why. The official said the intelligence community would not comment on anything to do with the anti-Trump whistleblower.

I never mentioned or asked about the anti-Trump whistleblower.

[Anonymous]

Trump defenders you are grasping for straws. Guilty is a tough concept to swallow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump defenders you are grasping for straws. Guilty is a tough concept to swallow.

They need to move on and figure out who they are going to run in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Making themselves proud, there, I see.

Really? They can pick apart the pieces but not the phone call memo, which the whistleblower saw first hand and which we the people have also seen first hand.

I read the complaint. I believe the bolded is incorrect. He heard about the phone call.

He received a readout of the call. I was assuming that he received a memo similar to the phone call memo that was unclassified and released, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe the readout was a verbal recount? Are you knowledgeable about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

The first line of the piece says it happened sometime "between May 2018 and August 2019). That's an awfully wide window to assume it "just" happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

This is odd. And, this tweet from the reporter.....

Sean Davis
@seanmdav
I talked to a DNI official and asked when these revisions were made and why. The official said the intelligence community would not comment on anything to do with the anti-Trump whistleblower.

I never mentioned or asked about the anti-Trump whistleblower.

In other words, this "reporter" isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is, and the DNI official was smart enough to know what he was fishing for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

This is odd. And, this tweet from the reporter.....

Sean Davis
@seanmdav
I talked to a DNI official and asked when these revisions were made and why. The official said the intelligence community would not comment on anything to do with the anti-Trump whistleblower.

I never mentioned or asked about the anti-Trump whistleblower.

In other words, this "reporter" isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is, and the DNI official was smart enough to know what he was fishing for.

??? Everyone knows they cannot talk about the whistleblower. But, to not say when the policy was revised? Why does that have anything to do with the whistleblower?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

The first line of the piece says it happened sometime "between May 2018 and August 2019). That's an awfully wide window to assume it "just" happened.

I just saw reported that it was revised in August 2019 and was not uploaded on the whistleblower site until Sept 24. Timing is everything. I'll have to find the source again.

Very convenient for the whistleblower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

The first line of the piece says it happened sometime "between May 2018 and August 2019). That's an awfully wide window to assume it "just" happened.

Also, where did that previous version come from? Is it something The Federalist fabricated?

[Anonymous]

Kurt Volker resigned from his position as the U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine today.
https://www.statepress.com/article/2019/09/sppolitics-mccain-head-steps-down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kurt Volker resigned from his position as the U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine today.
https://www.statepress.com/article/2019/09/sppolitics-mccain-head-steps-down

Oh.

Dumb question: is he career or a political appointee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

The first line of the piece says it happened sometime "between May 2018 and August 2019). That's an awfully wide window to assume it "just" happened.

Also, where did that previous version come from? Is it something The Federalist fabricated?

Nope. They took it down. But, a very astute person found in using the Wayback machine. Read the whole thread. It is very informative and research is documented.

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1177580473566093312

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

This is odd. And, this tweet from the reporter.....

Sean Davis
@seanmdav
I talked to a DNI official and asked when these revisions were made and why. The official said the intelligence community would not comment on anything to do with the anti-Trump whistleblower.

I never mentioned or asked about the anti-Trump whistleblower.

In other words, this "reporter" isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is, and the DNI official was smart enough to know what he was fishing for.

??? Everyone knows they cannot talk about the whistleblower. But, to not say when the policy was revised? Why does that have anything to do with the whistleblower?

It's painfully obvious that the question is trying to get at whether the policy was just changed for this whistleblower. Even if it wasn't though, as soon as the official answers any questions on the topic (even if the reporter thinks he's being very clever by not specifically referencing the whistleblower), people will read any subsequent refusal to answer a question about the whistleblower as implying the answer is damning. Therefore, it's safer not to answer any, because then there's no principled basis to read into a refusal to answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

The first line of the piece says it happened sometime "between May 2018 and August 2019). That's an awfully wide window to assume it "just" happened.

Also, where did that previous version come from? Is it something The Federalist fabricated?

Nope. They took it down. But, a very astute person found in using the Wayback machine. Read the whole thread. It is very informative and research is documented.

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1177580473566093312

The import of all of this is:

Our president is a crook. And lots of people have known it for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

So, rules applying to whistleblowers in IC were just revised. How convenient.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

This is odd. And, this tweet from the reporter.....

Sean Davis
@seanmdav
I talked to a DNI official and asked when these revisions were made and why. The official said the intelligence community would not comment on anything to do with the anti-Trump whistleblower.

I never mentioned or asked about the anti-Trump whistleblower.

In other words, this "reporter" isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is, and the DNI official was smart enough to know what he was fishing for.

??? Everyone knows they cannot talk about the whistleblower. But, to not say when the policy was revised? Why does that have anything to do with the whistleblower?

It's painfully obvious that the question is trying to get at whether the policy was just changed for this whistleblower. Even if it wasn't though, as soon as the official answers any questions on the topic (even if the reporter thinks he's being very clever by not specifically referencing the whistleblower), people will read any subsequent refusal to answer a question about the whistleblower as implying the answer is damning. Therefore, it's safer not to answer any, because then there's no principled basis to read into a refusal to answer.

But if the answer is Yes, that doesn't change the report. Or Trump and Giuliani's behavior.

Also, intekk