Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Hey, person obsessed with the rule changes - are you Sebastian Gorka or Jack Posobiec? Because that's where your talking points come from. Alt right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

No part of that is true. Trump himself broadly confirmed it by releasing the call notes.

I guess Trump has kept good on his promise to roll back the bureaucracy. If we are going to get rid of all that EPA red tape, might as well do the same thing with OIG too! Way to go Mr. President!

[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!

The allegations are true. Deal with it.

No. They are not.

Trump and Giuliani disagree with you.

[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.

Ironic that the conversation was put in the secret server because of this conversation.

The man is a traitor. Bill Weld is correct.

[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?

Likely Mattis, McMaster and Tillerson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The word of White House officials isn't "hearsay, rumor, or gossip". If this U.S. official brought this claim to the press, their information wouldn't be labeled as "hearsay, rumor, or gossip."

And the truth you aren't going to like is this. The whistleblower committed no crime. They didn't reveal any classified information. Their report is UNCLASSIFIED. Even if they aren't protected under the Whistleblower Act, all that means is that they *might* lose their job. Trump's crimes were going to be revealed.

Much of what is in the complaint has turned out not to be accurate. Maybe, because it was secondhand information. Just because you want to believe it, does not make it true.
Have you never heard things from other people that turned out not to be exactly true?

With the new rules, anyone could say anything, as long as they "heard" it.

What percent of it? How do you know for sure?

DP, but both Rudy Giuliani and President Turmp have confirmed the main substance of the complaint. So if they confirmed it, why do you think it isn't true? Or is this the one time you think Trump is lying?

[Anonymous]

Nothing Giuliani said or did is classified! Hahahaha, bring on Volker!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The White House has known about the whistleblower for a LONG TIME.

“The officer first shared information about potential abuse of power and a White House cover-up with the C.I.A.’s top lawyer through an anonymous process. She shared the officer’s concerns with White House and Justice Department officials, following policy.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html#click=https://t.co/r7jd0saQlq

Wow, the NYT really put a Target on the WB back. “She” narrows the field.
And of course the WB is a woman. All the men are too scared.
Just like we need a woman president. Men have shown us they just don’t have the courage or temperament.

Fascinating. It's been reported that the whistleblower is a man...

Maybe someone also responded (I'm catching up) but I assumed "she" meant the CIA lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing Giuliani said or did is classified! Hahahaha, bring on Volker!

He'll be there next week -- and he just resigned..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Does anyone know if the server in question has been secured somewhere outside the purview of the White House? Or have they destroyed it by now?

An NSC server? It's not destroyed.

Correct. It survives this administration in the White House. And - can’t link because I heard it on the radio earlier - the House sent an order to preserve it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Jeff should delete all argument about a change in whistle blower rules. It brings nothing to the discussion.

Except big spotlight on the allegation.

[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!

Outside of a court of law, hearsay isn't an important distinction.

But what's your point? Trump and Giuliani between them have corroborated most of the salient points.

Outside of a court of law? You people are going on and on about impeaching the President and the VP so that Nancy Pelosi can take her rightful place, and don’t think it’s important to consider the complaint itself???

[Anonymous]

This insipid argument about second-hand information and "hearsay" won't hold water. The WB is CIA, and analyst and his/her account is airtight. Plus, there was a reference to multiple WH aides who were direct witnesses, all of whom will be subpoenaed.

Then the Trumpsters will move to another weak argument. Their defense of the indefensible will no sway public opinion, once the public starts really paying attention. Pretty soon the R's will start jumping ship like rats on the Titanic.

[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.

No, you’re right. I was the poster and screwed up my statement. Who knows if it was me or the smartphone - LOL!

Yes, to ALLOW hearsay

[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-communi...-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!


Outside of a court of law, hearsay isn't an important distinction.

But what's your point? Trump and Giuliani between them have corroborated most of the salient points.


Outside of a court of law? You people are going on and on about impeaching the President and the VP so that Nancy Pelosi can take her rightful place, and don’t think it’s important to consider the complaint itself???

so you are saying that Trump and Giuliani are lying right now?