Whistleblower complaint released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pompeo confirms he was on the Ukraine call.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/politics/mike-pompeo-ukraine-call/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-10-02T11%3A49%3A36&utm_term=link&utm_source=fbCNNp

I love his non-answer to whether he thought the call was improper. Not yes or no, but this:

"I'd been a secretary of state for coming on a year and a half. I know precisely what the American policy is with respect to Ukraine. It's been remarkably consistent, and we will continue to try to drive those set of outcomes," Pompeo said.

"Of all of the conversations I've heard, this was one of them."

[Anonymous]

"It's what our team, including Ambassador (Kurt) Volker, were focused on was taking down the threat that Russia poses there in Ukraine. It was about helping the Ukrainians to get graft out and corruption outside of their government and to help now this new government in the Ukraine build a successful thriving economy. It's what the State Department officials that I've had the privilege to lead have been engaged in. And it's what we will continue to do. Even while all this noise is going on."

And yet, our actions, especially those of Giuliani and Trump, have increased corruption in the Ukrainian government instead of getting it out. Protests yesterday arose chanting "Zelensky out." Whether those were attributable to anti-Russian Ukrianians or pro-, it doesn't show a stable, successful new government.

Ukraine is a strategic ally of ours, and we've helped to destabilize their new government. Apparently Pompeo didn't notice any of that. Or else he approves of it.

[Anonymous]

“Confirmed: A source familiar tells me the State Department IG briefing on the Hill is about retaliation against State Department officials who are trying to cooperate with House Democrats.”
- Yamiche Alcindor, PBS NewsHour

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Confirmed: A source familiar tells me the State Department IG briefing on the Hill is about retaliation against State Department officials who are trying to cooperate with House Democrats.”
- Yamiche Alcindor, PBS NewsHour

YES. Please please please say they have proof!

[Anonymous]

So, the whistleblower originally went to Schiff's aid. Curious.

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, the whistleblower originally went to Schiff's aid. Curious.

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html

Well its a good thing he/she did or we'd STILL be waiting to see it. Its not like the WH cared that they were constitutionally obligated to hand it over. The WB went to Schiff's aid only when his complaint wasn't seeing the light of day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the whistleblower originally went to Schiff's aid. Curious.

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html

Well its a good thing he/she did or we'd STILL be waiting to see it. Its not like the WH cared that they were constitutionally obligated to hand it over. The WB went to Schiff's aid only when his complaint wasn't seeing the light of day.

Nope. He went to Schiff's aid BEFORE filing the complaint.
Schiff's aid told him to get a lawyer. Schiff has been lying.
Wonder how much assistance the WB got from Schiff, et al, in drafting the complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the whistleblower originally went to Schiff's aid. Curious.

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html

Well its a good thing he/she did or we'd STILL be waiting to see it. Its not like the WH cared that they were constitutionally obligated to hand it over. The WB went to Schiff's aid only when his complaint wasn't seeing the light of day.

Nope. He went to Schiff's aid BEFORE filing the complaint.
Schiff's aid told him to get a lawyer. Schiff has been lying.
Wonder how much assistance the WB got from Schiff, et al, in drafting the complaint.

It's spelled "aide".

The WB has the best whistleblower lawyers in the country. I think they can figure it out without help.

[Anonymous]

Schiff is now a fact witness and needs to recuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, the whistleblower originally went to Schiff's aid. Curious.

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

And Ford went to Feinstein. Funny that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the whistleblower originally went to Schiff's aid. Curious.

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html

Well its a good thing he/she did or we'd STILL be waiting to see it. Its not like the WH cared that they were constitutionally obligated to hand it over. The WB went to Schiff's aid only when his complaint wasn't seeing the light of day.

Nope. He went to Schiff's aid BEFORE filing the complaint.
Schiff's aid told him to get a lawyer. Schiff has been lying.
Wonder how much assistance the WB got from Schiff, et al, in drafting the complaint.

You know how much you care about all the shit Trump has done? That’s how much I care if Schiff knew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schiff is now a fact witness and needs to recuse.

A fact witness to what? If the whistleblower hadn't gone to the Congressional aide then the complaint would've been successfully buried by the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schiff is now a fact witness and needs to recuse.

A fact witness to what? If the whistleblower hadn't gone to the Congressional aide then the complaint would've been successfully buried by the White House.

How can it be buried when we all have seen it?
And, he went to Schiff's office BEFORE he ever filed the complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schiff is now a fact witness and needs to recuse.

A fact witness to what? If the whistleblower hadn't gone to the Congressional aide then the complaint would've been successfully buried by the White House.

How can it be buried when we all have seen it?
And, he went to Schiff's office BEFORE he ever filed the complaint.

That's a question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schiff is now a fact witness and needs to recuse.

A fact witness to what? If the whistleblower hadn't gone to the Congressional aide then the complaint would've been successfully buried by the White House.

How can it be buried when we all have seen it?
And, he went to Schiff's office BEFORE he ever filed the complaint.

Quoting directly from the NY Times article - the timeline

The C.I.A. officer first had a colleague take his concerns — in vague form — to the C.I.A.’s general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, who began a preliminary inquiry by contacting a deputy White House counsel, alerting the White House that complaints were coming from the C.I.A.

As C.I.A. and White House lawyers began following up on the complaint, the C.I.A. officer became nervous, according to a person familiar with the matter. He learned that John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and the legal adviser to the national security adviser, was among those scrutinizing his initial allegation....

...The C.I.A. officer decided the complaint he had brought to Ms. Elwood was at risk of being swept aside, prompting him to go to the lawmakers who conduct oversight of the intelligence agencies.

He followed the advice of Mr. Schiff’s aide and filed his complaint to Mr. Atkinson. And though Mr. Maguire blocked him from forwarding it to Congress, he did allow Mr. Atkinson to notify lawmakers of its existence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage