Florida State Seminoles

[hedge]

Frankly, who gives a fuck about the wording on the fucking form? The law is the law, and "first-hand knowledge" was never part of the law. So the wording on the form is completely irrelevant. But the fact is, the old forms made it appear as if you did need first-hand info for the complaint to even be considered, which was totally misleading and just plain wrong. So if the form was changed, all the better, to wit:

"In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational
materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees. "

But if you read the IG's memo, you find this:

"The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is
the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before
Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the
Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether
the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging
the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant
– or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect
to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand
information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The
ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. "

So basically the form is a complete non-issue, and the claim that congress is circumventing the law b/c the whistleblower complaint was not 100% "first-hand knowledge" is completely false. So are you still going to stick with the "legislative coup" smear? Look, I get it, you're a Trump supporter and you feel like he's been unfairly criticized and shat on by what you think of as the mainstream media and others. But we're talking about matters of law and constitutional authority here. I understand you're pissed (just like most Clinton supporters were pissed in 1998) about this whole deal, but please quit trying to act like it's some kind of unlawful coup. It's perfectly by the book and in fact the book was written precisely with this type of situation in mind. Like I said, I get that you're pissed, but maybe just a little bit of your pissed offed-ness should be reserved for the dumb fuck who got himself into this situation in the first place...

[Jungle Rat]

I think he just threw his maga hat across the room.

[Saint]

Fuck Trump. He's a loser.

[eCat]

again, you're not getting the whole picture.

the wording is very specific

Urgent Concern has a specific definition which is the funding, administration or operation of the intelligence community.

Only if those requirements are met is it allowed to be presented to congress. It does not include any activities outside the intelligence community,
There are ICIG statutes that specifically state what should and should not be done in that case - and that is report it to the attorney general.

In this case I suspect the whistleblower and ICIG feel that the AG is in the pocket of the president and their complaints would go nowhere - so they broke their rules in order to get this in front of congress.

The reason the first hand knowledge is important is because the ICIG is trying to say its within the intelligence community domain to include conversations the president had with a foreign power as an intelligence operation. Its a loose connection at best, and hearsay would not come close to passing the smell test, because it would not directly involve *anyone* in the intelligence community.

so are you still going to go with no rules are broken? look I get it, you don't like Trump so you don't care if rules are broken to bring him down, but quit trying to act like its OK to break the law if the ends justify the means.

here is your obligatory link
https://www.lawfareblog.com/olc-issues- ... plaint-dni

[Jungle Rat]

If Trump didn't anything wrong then why is he tweeting 100 times a day defending himself, calling for a civil war if he's impeached and threatening to have the whistleblower killed? Innocent people don't act this way.

[eCat]

and here is the real litmus test in all of this

Had Obama done this would there have been an impeachment process with Congress?

no, not because a republican controlled house wouldn't have wanted it, but because the intelligence community would have never proceeded with it.

There is a double standard here where Washington Intelligence and Progressives hold Trump to a higher standard than the previous administration.

That's why this talk of civil war , as absurd as it sounds, rings true with some because Washington is doing all they can to stop the president elected by flyover states.

[eCat]

If Trump didn't anything wrong then why is he tweeting 100 times a day defending himself, calling for a civil war if he's impeached and threatening to have the whistleblower killed? Innocent people don't act this way.

no one is saying he hasn't done anything

[Jungle Rat]

Heh. Another but, but.... Obama did it too!! post

[hedge]

"Had Obama done this would there have been an impeachment process with Congress?

no, not because a republican controlled house wouldn't have wanted it"

That raises an interesting point. Starting in the 1930's and for the rest of the 20th century, the House was mostly controlled by the dems, often by very large margins. Granted, they often had a dem president, but dems had large majorities in the House when Nixon, Reagan and Bush were president. Yeah, Nixon got 86'd, but that was hardly b/c of a unilateral democratic push. And there was never a hint of Reagan or Bush getting impeached. Then, in 1994, the repubs take control (by a very thin margin) for the first time in forever and what's the first thing they do? Impeach Clinton for a blowjob. Goddamn, you talk about payback if the dems impeach Trump now? This is the payback. The difference is, this time it actually has merit...

[hedge]

"In this case I suspect the whistleblower and ICIG feel that the AG is in the pocket of the president and their complaints would go nowhere - so they broke their rules in order to get this in front of congress."

They did take it to the AG and, as you predicted, he shrugged his shoulders. Obviously somebody told Trump this wasn't going away (probably Barr, who is no fool) and Trump released the transcript himself...

[bluetick]

Meanwhile, AG Barr is traveling the globe, and Trump is making overseas calls, with the aim of discrediting our intelligence agencies assessment of Russian election interference. Trump stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Putin in Helsinki and telegraphed his intentions. Clear Russia and get those crippling sanctions dropped -the Obama-era ones Flynn promised Kislyak would get axed, plus the ones Congress has imposed since.

Putin is owed this service, and the clock is ticking.

[crashcourse]

so you cant convict someone with second hand lknowledge but you can impeach a president

[Saint]

Impeachment is a waste of time. I'd rather see him voted out by his own base in the GOP primaries next year. That would hurt him worse than anything.

[hedge]

so you cant convict someone with second hand lknowledge but you can impeach a president

Where's the second-hand knowledge? He released the transcripts, it's all there. No telling how many other leaders Trump has shaken down. As far as the whistleblower complaint, it was never part of the statute that it had to be first-hand, if the IG thinks it has merit, he investigates (he is the Inspector General, after all). Evidently, that's exactly what happened. FWIW (not much with this crowd, I know), the whistleblower claimed he had some first-hand knowledge of Trumpian malfeasance. We shall see, but does anybody, even Trump's most virulent supporters, really doubt it?

[hedge]

Trump = Malfeasancer-in-chief

[aTm]

What this kinda reminds me of is the horseshit that they tried to pull on Rick Perry and his little spat with the Travis County DA. They accused him of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public official because he threatened to veto the funding of her "Public Integrity Unit" and asked for her resignation after she went to jail for drunk driving. Like having a political beef with someone would suddenly make it criminal to exercise your enumerated powers as an elected official. Its fucking dumb, like the Governor and his veto, the President is allowed to negotiate with other countries and ask them to do whatever he thinks is in the country's best interest. Asking some other entity to investigate someone that he thinks committed a crime is not criminal, it would only be so if he was influencing them to make something up fraudulently.

I'm sure there are ethical concerns, but thats 100% in the bounds of petty politics (which impeachment also is). Impeachment is about votes. Its a political process. The Democrats dont have them in the Senate and so this all a clusterfuck waste of time, thats only generating some clicks for the mass media companies.

[bluetick]

What this kinda reminds me of is the horseshit that they tried to pull on Rick Perry and his little spat with the Travis County DA. They accused him of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public official because he threatened to veto the funding of her "Public Integrity Unit" and asked for her resignation after she went to jail for drunk driving. Like having a political beef with someone would suddenly make it criminal to exercise your enumerated powers as an elected official. Its fucking dumb, like the Governor and his veto, the President is allowed to negotiate with other countries and ask them to do whatever he thinks is in the country's best interest. Asking some other entity to investigate someone that he thinks committed a crime is not criminal, it would only be so if he was influencing them to make something up fraudulently.

Trump held up arms to Ukraine unless Ukraine stopped cooperating with Mueller in the Manafort investigation, which they did. Was that in the country's best interest? And now we come to "But I'd like you to me a favor though". Trump had 3 different accounts of why he held up the 400 million arms shipment THIS time. Even a terrible prosecutor could make a case for quid pro quo - merely by showing the transcript. Criminal, probably. Official misconduct - sure. Abuse of power - you bet.

I'm sure there are ethical concerns, but thats 100% in the bounds of petty politics (which impeachment also is). Impeachment is about votes. Its a political process. The Democrats dont have them in the Senate and so this all a clusterfuck waste of time, thats only generating some clicks for the mass media companies.

Relax, it's merely an impeachment inquiry at this point. History says these kind of pre-impeachment look-sees get results - it got Bill Clinton to testify under oath, remember? Nixon had to turn over his tapes. Stuff like that - I wouldn't worry to much about it.

[aTm]

Yay #TeamBlue!

[hedge]

Do you really think Trump wanted Biden investigated for the best interests of the country? There's no way to prove it either way, I understand, but I'm just asking if you really believe that...

[eCat]

If the democrats wanted to be serious about taking down Trump in the election, the key is to hammer him on manufacturing.

The numbers show with only a small spike immediately following his election, he's done nothing to grow it. I'd kill him on that.

Instead Warren is going to talk about the evils of giant tech corporations that pay their people 6 figure salaries right out of college.