Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Gee. The IG is testifying on Friday - about the changing of the rules and forms allowing hearsay in a complaint.
It is a closed hearing.

Gee. I wonder why this hearing might be closed?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gee. The IG is testifying on Friday - about the changing of the rules and forms allowing hearsay in a complaint.
It is a closed hearing.

Gee. I wonder why this hearing might be closed?????

The IG is testifying about the Whistleblower, whose identity must remain anonymous under law which is why the hearing is closed. The whole "rules change" thing is another right wing sham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gee. The IG is testifying on Friday - about the changing of the rules and forms allowing hearsay in a complaint.
It is a closed hearing.

Gee. I wonder why this hearing might be closed?????

Because it involves issues of national security? Most House intelligence committee meetings are closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Schiff knows who the whistleblower is and so does his staff.

Source? Other than your own *ss?

They moved to impeach before the transcript came out. They knew what was in the phone call (or thought they did) because they had the whistleblower's lawyer-written letter already.

They moved to impeach because the White House was illegally blocking the release of the complaint to the House. When the ICIG has instructed that a complaint be sent to the House Intelligence Committee and the White House intervenes to prevent that from happening, it's not a huge leap to assume that the White House has done this to protect itself.

Actually, the complaint was not released because it was heresay and couldn't be confirmed.

The whole "heresay" thing is right wing garbage, as usual.

https://www.mediamatters.org/federalist/false-report-federalist-about-whistleblower-complaints-fuels-trump-defenders-impeachment

Media Matter is actual garbage.

Which makes The Federalist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Schiff knows who the whistleblower is and so does his staff.

Source? Other than your own *ss?

They moved to impeach before the transcript came out. They knew what was in the phone call (or thought they did) because they had the whistleblower's lawyer-written letter already.

They moved to impeach because the White House was illegally blocking the release of the complaint to the House. When the ICIG has instructed that a complaint be sent to the House Intelligence Committee and the White House intervenes to prevent that from happening, it's not a huge leap to assume that the White House has done this to protect itself.

Actually, the complaint was not released because it was heresay and couldn't be confirmed.

The whole "heresay" thing is right wing garbage, as usual.

https://www.mediamatters.org/federalist/false-report-federalist-about-whistleblower-complaints-fuels-trump-defenders-impeachment

Media Matter is actual garbage.

For linking to the actual relevant statutes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gee. The IG is testifying on Friday - about the changing of the rules and forms allowing hearsay in a complaint.
It is a closed hearing.

Gee. I wonder why this hearing might be closed?????

Because it involves issues of national security? Most House intelligence committee meetings are closed.

Interesting that ADNI Maguire testified in open session. And, the forms and criteria are public information.
No - I think this is quite intentional on the part of Schiff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gee. The IG is testifying on Friday - about the changing of the rules and forms allowing hearsay in a complaint.
It is a closed hearing.

Gee. I wonder why this hearing might be closed?????

Because it involves issues of national security? Most House intelligence committee meetings are closed.

Interesting that ADNI Maguire testified in open session. And, the forms and criteria are public information.
No - I think this is quite intentional on the part of Schiff.

You seem hopeless. Have you read the linked statutes? You are being lied to by your news sources and choosing to believe it. Why? Use your own google powers and go to the source.

[Anonymous]

It’s so absurd that some people are worrying about the technicalities of a tule change. The whistleblower followed process and has been right about everything, as confirmed by Trump, Guiliani, etc.

Maybe you should be more interested in your treasonous president* and his using national resources for personal gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gee. The IG is testifying on Friday - about the changing of the rules and forms allowing hearsay in a complaint.
It is a closed hearing.

Gee. I wonder why this hearing might be closed?????

Because it involves issues of national security? Most House intelligence committee meetings are closed.

Interesting that ADNI Maguire testified in open session. And, the forms and criteria are public information.
No - I think this is quite intentional on the part of Schiff.

The IG met in private earlier. Remember?

[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.

No, it isn't hearsay. And the rules never required first hand knowledge. This is Fake News from the Federalist.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-shows-russian-trolls-how-its-done-with-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-smear

From the article:

“There’s never been a requirement that a whistleblower have firsthand knowledge of what they’re reporting,” said Irvin McCullough, an investigator at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (and the son of a former IC IG). “They need to have a reasonable belief. The firsthand information is usually gathered by the inspector general, as I believe did occur here.”

[Anonymous]

The whistle blower never heard the conversation. Therefore it is hearsay by definition.

[Anonymous]

As stated above, whether the Whistleblower's complaint is based on hearsay is irrelevant. The whistleblower passes on the information and the IC IG then investigates and corroborates. The new form doesn't change this - it simply consolidated some categories. Previously a WB could check first hand knowledge, knowledge from outside source, or knowledge from other employees. In August it changed to say first hand knowledge or other source. Look at the two versions of the forms for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Schiff knows who the whistleblower is and so does his staff.

Source? Other than your own *ss?

They moved to impeach before the transcript came out. They knew what was in the phone call (or thought they did) because they had the whistleblower's lawyer-written letter already.

They moved to impeach because the White House was illegally blocking the release of the complaint to the House. When the ICIG has instructed that a complaint be sent to the House Intelligence Committee and the White House intervenes to prevent that from happening, it's not a huge leap to assume that the White House has done this to protect itself.

Actually, the complaint was not released because it was heresay and couldn't be confirmed.

The whole "heresay" thing is right wing garbage, as usual.

https://www.mediamatters.org/federalist/false-report-federalist-about-whistleblower-complaints-fuels-trump-defenders-impeachment

Unnamed person saying likely this is why. That’s called speculation. What they can’t refute is the rule changed

[Anonymous]

The rule didn't change, as stated above. Wording on the form changed to consolidate two responses. Look for yourself at the April 2019 form, and the August 2019 form.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't Ukraine have records of the conversation?