Whistleblower complaint released

[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.

Look - I know enough to know I don't want to say anything. We just got a neighborhood years' long gas leak under control. Not ready for cement shoes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Heresy you say!

[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.

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.

Yep. The horse is out of the barn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look - I know enough to know I don't want to say anything. We just got a neighborhood years' long gas leak under control. Not ready for cement shoes.

Hopefully you aren't the whistleblower, trump has already threatened him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

You do know that changing policy is done by the executive branch (trump appointees). How is this a political hit job?

[Anonymous]

What am I missing regarding this "hearsay" accusation? I thought hearsay only means anything in the context of testimony during a trial. Can't criminal investigations be launched on the strength of credible "hearsay"? Is there something preventing an impeachment investigation being launched based on credible "hearsay"? It seems like a completely meaningless objection.

[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.

Anything's possible, I guesd. But if so, the target's been hit and is taking on water.

[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.

The complaint isn’t hearsay and it is true. It is being investigated and validated properly but Trump and Giuliani and the White House have admitted all the major allegations. So the Whistleblower rules change had no effect on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

You do know that changing policy is done by the executive branch (trump appointees). How is this a political hit job?

Just grasping at straws. Next week they will blame (pick one) Hollywood, Martians, or an expired jar of mayo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What am I missing regarding this "hearsay" accusation? I thought hearsay only means anything in the context of testimony during a trial. Can't criminal investigations be launched on the strength of credible "hearsay"? Is there something preventing an impeachment investigation being launched based on credible "hearsay"? It seems like a completely meaningless objection.

There's no strategy for responding to this "impeachment" thingie so the righties are just grabbing onto anything that looks good. Prepare for a lot of nonsense, even more than usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The complaint isn’t hearsay and it is true. It is being investigated and validated properly but Trump and Giuliani and the White House have admitted all the major allegations. So the Whistleblower rules change had no effect on this.

It is hearsay. Changing the rules after complaint was filed--which is the way it appears-- is not the way things are usually done. This was orchestrated and staged by way more than one guy/girl and a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Just soon they will be grabbing each other and we al know you can’t save a drowning man like that. The ship is going down...get out while you can. If you are young you can emerge relatively unscathed by Trump and glom on to the next Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The complaint isn’t hearsay and it is true. It is being investigated and validated properly but Trump and Giuliani and the White House have admitted all the major allegations. So the Whistleblower rules change had no effect on this.

It is hearsay. Changing the rules after complaint was filed--which is the way it appears-- is not the way things are usually done. This was orchestrated and staged by way more than one guy/girl and a lawyer.

Grabbing onto anything, are you? It won't save you. Or Trump.

Rules change. It happens. Are you a fed, do you know any feds? "Orchestrated and staged" -- seems like you probably don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The complaint isn’t hearsay and it is true. It is being investigated and validated properly but Trump and Giuliani and the White House have admitted all the major allegations. So the Whistleblower rules change had no effect on this.

It is hearsay. Changing the rules after complaint was filed--which is the way it appears-- is not the way things are usually done. This was orchestrated and staged by way more than one guy/girl and a lawyer.

Grabbing onto anything, are you? It won't save you. Or Trump.

Rules change. It happens. Are you a fed, do you know any feds? "Orchestrated and staged" -- seems like you probably don't.

Actually, I've been one for many years and know many. I know that things don't mysteriously get changed after a grievance has been filed. Rules change--but, not like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The complaint isn’t hearsay and it is true. It is being investigated and validated properly but Trump and Giuliani and the White House have admitted all the major allegations. So the Whistleblower rules change had no effect on this.

It is hearsay. Changing the rules after complaint was filed--which is the way it appears-- is not the way things are usually done. This was orchestrated and staged by way more than one guy/girl and a lawyer.

Grabbing onto anything, are you? It won't save you. Or Trump.

Rules change. It happens. Are you a fed, do you know any feds? "Orchestrated and staged" -- seems like you probably don't.

Actually, I've been one for many years and know many. I know that things don't mysteriously get changed after a grievance has been filed. Rules change--but, not like this.

The rule changed sometime in 2018 or 2019. That's hardly "after a grievance has been filed."

But okay, comfort yourself by thinking that Trump won't actually be impeached because ... something something ... they changed the rules!