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???

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

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

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...

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?

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 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.

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.

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.