Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ouch!

He's toast. Everyone knows it. This WaPo bombshell shows it.

This is the same publication that said the ADNI was going to resign and that a "promise" was made by Trump to the Ukraine president.
Hard to take anything they write seriously when it comes to this story.

So this is the GOP spin: gaslighting!

pretty much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ouch!

He's toast. Everyone knows it. This WaPo bombshell shows it.

This is the same publication that said the ADNI was going to resign and that a "promise" was made by Trump to the Ukraine president.
Hard to take anything they write seriously when it comes to this story.

Guess you didn't read it. This isn't even a big story, at this point. It just shows that Trump's time is up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CNN is saying that transcripts of Trump calls with Putin and MBS also were placed in the highly restricted server for political reasons.

This is the real big news.

Trump released the Ukrainian conversation casually, because it's likely nothing compared to the explosive content of the Putin and MBS calls...

And conveniently, Putin just said: "Please don't release my calls".
(MBS probably sent an envoy to say the same thing.)

So this may loop back to the 2016 election and Mueller after all...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ouch!

He's toast. Everyone knows it. This WaPo bombshell shows it.

This is the same publication that said the ADNI was going to resign and that a "promise" was made by Trump to the Ukraine president.
Hard to take anything they write seriously when it comes to this story.

Guess you didn't read it. This isn't even a big story, at this point. It just shows that Trump's time is up.

It’s all relative, but it’s still definitely a big story. So many traitors. This is the beginning of the deluge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here come all the leaks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.?The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the day before had relieved “great pressure” on him.

I can't access the article, so can you tell us who is the source of this information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here come all the leaks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.?The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the day before had relieved “great pressure” on him.

I can't access the article, so can you tell us who is the source of this information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here come all the leaks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the U.S. election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.?The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the day before had relieved “great pressure” on him.

I can't access the article, so can you tell us who is the source of this information?

Already used up all of your free articles?

[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.

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW second-hand information or hearsay.

(I originally thought the same think but, I read the article.)

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

Sounds like an...insurance policy

OMG. This is outrageous. What a fingerprintthough, huh.

The best part is that they specifically changed the rule that says heresay is not acceptable. What a coincidence!

[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.

Sounds like an...insurance policy

OMG. This is outrageous. What a fingerprintthough, huh.

The best part is that they specifically changed the rule that says heresay is not acceptable. What a coincidence!

It may be misspelled but that's a massive Freudian slip!!!

[Anonymous]

I messed up the placement of my response to the above post:

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW hearsay.

Read the article.

Smh. This is completely outrageous and the crafters are having a good laugh. Laugh now, savor it now.

I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I messed up the placement of my response to the above post:

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW hearsay.

Read the article.

Smh. This is completely outrageous and the crafters are having a good laugh. Laugh now, savor it now.

I could be wrong.

This indicates that this is a political hit job. The timing is everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like an...insurance policy

OMG. This is outrageous. What a fingerprintthough, huh.

The best part is that they specifically changed the rule that says heresay is not acceptable. What a coincidence!

It may be misspelled but that's a massive Freudian slip!!!

Whatever you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I messed up the placement of my response to the above post:

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW hearsay.

Read the article.

Smh. This is completely outrageous and the crafters are having a good laugh. Laugh now, savor it now.

I could be wrong.

I don't quite understand the Gotcha significance of this. Whether the whistleblower complaint complied with the old rules or the new rules (it looks to me like it complies with both, but I'm not the IG), whether the whistleblower rules were changed to allow for more whistleblowing generally or for this particular whistleblower (that seems implausible), none of that changes Trump's behavior. Whether the whistleblower is a patriot or guilty under the Espionage Act (which seems to be only import of this rule change), the president acted wrongly. And is now the subject of impeachment hearings. We're beyond questions about hearsay in regards to the whistleblower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I messed up the placement of my response to the above post:

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW hearsay.

Read the article.

Smh. This is completely outrageous and the crafters are having a good laugh. Laugh now, savor it now.

I could be wrong.

This indicates that this is a political hit job. The timing is everything.

Except that we don’t know the timing beyond sometime between almost a year and a half ago and last month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I messed up the placement of my response to the above post:

It's the exact opposite: the whistleblower requirement was changed to ALLOW hearsay.

Read the article.

Smh. This is completely outrageous and the crafters are having a good laugh. Laugh now, savor it now.

I could be wrong.

This indicates that this is a political hit job. The timing is everything.

Sometime between May 2018 and today-ish. What spectacular timing!