READ: Whistleblower lawyer's letter to White House

Not me, I love growing my own food.

 

Oh the irony.

 

Lawyer letters are for show

 

Because the Democrats are arguing that he really is a Whistle Blower, and majority rules.

 

You spend a lot of time asserting that you have evidence of the "truth", and yet, what you really have is reporting, supposition, and faith. Typical.

 

It's an independent agency within the Executive Branch. Look it up.

 

What part of independent are you, again, struggling with.

Independent agencies of the United States federal government are agencies that exist outside the federal executive departments (those headed by a Cabinet secretary) and the Executive Office of the President.[1] In a more narrow sense, the term may also be used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally managed by the executive branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited.

 

Ha ha. I can't believe I'm hearing this from the people that brought us the term "undocumented immigrant."

Anyway, I never heard Trump threaten or intimidate the "whistle blower." It's just a lawyer gassing.

 

Sometimes but this one if neat...

 

What do you get when you cross a crooked lawyer with a crooked politician?

Chelsea!

 

Don't recall that but so what if Obama's staff did something bad how does that justify a copy cat. If a POS conducts a mass murder in a church how would that justify a copycat to do the same?

 

Says an anonymous person on the internet...

 

Wrong you get Guiliani...

 

The Director of the CIA reports to the Director of National Intelligence, who reports to the President, with Congressional oversight. "Independent" refers to the inability of the President to fire the head of the agency at will (e.g. for political purposes), but only "for cause." The WB was apparently "on loan" from the CIA to the WH National Security Council staff. Fellow co-workers apparently expressed concern with the tel-con and he reported their concern. I believe he may have first gone to a staffer on the Intelligence Committee, who referred him to the CIA IG, who referred him to the DNI's IG. The DNI's IG found his complaint to be "credible and urgent" and referred the complaint to the DNI. The DNI sought an opinion from the WH legal counsel, who referred him to the DoJ. The DoJ apparently determined the complaint not to be worthy of further investigation. The DCI's IG forwarded the complaint to the Intelligence Committee, per law. The Intelligence Committee contacted the WH to inquire on the status, leading the WH to release the transcript of the tel-con. Ukrainian funding was restored during this process...probably in view of the WB complaint and/or the end of the Fiscal Year, which would have cancelled the authorized funding for FY 2019.
Both the Intelligence IG and the Director of National Intelligence determined the WB complaint to be legal and within the lawful process. If you are denying that, you are denying the findings of the Trump appointees. One document to review might be the DoJ determination that the complaint didn't require a follow-up investigation. That determination would NOT necessarily also mean the WB didn't follow the legal process.
Oh yeah...compare the reporting line to a corporation. Corporate "officers," might report to the CEO, but could only be fired by the Board of Directors (in the government's case...the Congress).

 

Well allow me to remind you:

 

Word salad.

The intelligence agencies whistleblower act protects them from retaliation by their employer, and covers activities within the intelligence community.

The POTUS' call was not an activity within the purview of the intelligence community, and the POTUS has no ability to retaliate against him as he is not his employer.

He is not a whistleblower.

 

He is per the Intelligence IG and the Director of National Intelligence, both of whom have said he acted legally and offered a "credible and urgent" complaint. I think I'll take their word over your's.

 

I'm not sure what he threatened him with? He clearly states that death is no longer what we do with traitors. I believe his point was just how incredibly serious committing this breach is.

 

So you don't vote?

 

What breach? I thought he released the transcript to show there was no valid complaint? Are you saying the President wanted to keep the tel-con secret, but the WB forced him to release the transcript? Why was it secret in the first place?

 

Still right. You will have to come up with your own for Guiliani. He once fell in a pond full of alligators. They did not eat him. (Professional courtesy!)

 

No. Facts are facts. The earth is a sphere. That is not my opinion. That is fact.

Carbon monoxide is poisonous for humans. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.

That there are three specific statutes in the US code quoted by the WB's atty and linked to specific, verifiable CRIMINAL behavior by this piece of **** POTUS, that is FACT, not an opinion.

 

He or she doesn't have to be. Did you know this?

 

CNN imagine that

 

Well done for exposing liberal bigots!