Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistlebl

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

Apparently claims the whistleblower form had been changed a few weeks ago are Fake News.

 

Man, I'm kinda shocked how fast these fake 'counter points' are getting knocked down.

 

Overall you are correct. The review of the form begs the question, what personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved did the whistle blower have because all in the all, the news is reporting they have second hand knowledge only yet the review of the submitted form says something different!

The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”

 

Trump's mindless charges, innuendos, threats, attacks, and conspiracies have had one affect, the whistle blowers identity is unlikely to ever be revealed. It is no longer relevant information as whistles are now being blown all around this revelation. Soon we will see a stampede to the courthouse as participants rush to be first to turn states evidence.

Barr, Giuliani, and Pompeo are making matters infinitely worse with their not so secrete international sojourns. In his clumsy attempt tp "punch back" Trump has stirred a hornets nest of Washington insiders and public ire. What Trump has failed to grasp is that he is punching back at the United States of America.

 

Yes, that made me curious too. It's acknowledged elsewhere in the text:

 

And now it is being called into question how the original complaint is different from what was sent to Congress. Maybe it is called "I Made This @#$% Up, but now it has to be changed to look credible!"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/intelligence-watchdog-whistleblower-complaint

 

I don't see the contradiction - in the initial filing (which is quoted in your article), it says "“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described." "Most" presumably implies he/she was a direct witness to at least something.

 

Trump was not the one making charges.

 

People are learning... you have to get in front of RW garbage, because the longer they go unchecked, the harder it is to get the truth out.

An amazing document by the ICIG...

There is ZERO chance this man is still in his current job on 1/1/2020.... Ya gotta figure Trump is stomping around the Oval Office wondering who the hell recommended Atkinson to him....

 

Folks make mistakes. And this seems entirely likely to be another one of them. Like, for example the whistleblower claiming to have first hand knowledge of the conversation which is entirely untrue, and the alleged certification by the IG that it was of "urgent concern". Perhaps what that actually translated into should be considered... ding ding.. we have a traitor.... meaning the whistleblower. And isn't that actually the case now? I mean, aren't the credible facts that the same legal team who crafted the Ford smear of Kavanaugh trying to do exactly the same thing via this complaint? I mean, clearly, it wasn't crafted by the CIA agent (presumably) just like is wasn't crafted in the Kavanaugh case by the FBI agent in question, but the back end legal team is the same. Getting fooled twice now seems to really indict your credibility here.

 

They were being made by his surrogates. And this was a right wing talking point...until it fell apart.

Now they're on about a golf picture and whining that Pelosi hasn't called a vote. (do they really want to go there?????).

 

Guess who tweeted this?
"WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT?"

 

This exactly right, the bottom line the law is the law the complaint had to be heard. The rule somehow changed on how it was to be handled. The old rule eliminated the Credible part of the Credible and Urgent piece on how it proceeds to Congress. The old rule had the complaint had to be direct knowledge to meet the Credible and Urgent part therefore, Congress wouldn't have been informed but the complaint would go through the DOJ. Maybe it's a mistake but having the law firm that pulled the Kavanaugh stunt writing this complaint makes it sound like Avanti deal.

Regardless, if it's legit these questions need to be answered.
How does this whistleblower know to call that law firm?
Why hire that law firm before you make the complaint?
Why check direct knowledge on the form when you knew you didn't have direct knowledge?
Why did the OG update the signed form based on media requests?
Do we have paperwork trail on the rule change?
Why is Schiff tweeting on this before the report was sent to him?

 

This is what I posted - The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”;

That is first hand witnessing of an event or records. That is all I am saying. The record went from I have first hand knowledge to that being eliminated. Any "true" investigator is going to call it into question! Of course, this is a witch hunt by the Dems (any reason at all to impeach Trump and they already have him as guilty), so there are no true investigators here.

 

Again, having first hand knowledge was acknowledged in the complaint that went to Congress, so I'm not sure what point you're making. How was it eliminated?

 

WB didn’t claim to have first hand knowledge of the call. Getting that basic fact wrong really indicts your credibility here.

 

Well, regardless of how it was crafted, it appears to have been very largely borne out by subsequent events - the release of the transcript showing Trump did indeed bring up Biden in a form which could be construed as pressure, and the WH admission that the call was stored in a highly classified form. So I'm not sure where you get with your line of reasoning.

 

It would not break my heart if sometime soon Trump simply resigned for the betterment of the country! I just don't think he will do that with that ego being bigger than the White House itself.

Also, the Dems will not vote on this before June of next year. They want to push this as close to the election as they possibly can. They will drag this out, keeping it in the spotlight for the next 9-12 months. As many have predicted, it could easily backfire on them as America will tire of this quickly. So many already have! Politics is a challenging game of walking on eggshells or maybe of walking on eggs themselves.

That is why America questions and sometimes hate Democrats! This is all political posturing and pretty much that is all the Dems have done the entirety of 2019.

Of course, while I am a conservative at heart, I despise all politicians equally! If there had been any other Dem candidate against Trump in Nov 2016 there was better than a 75% chance I would have voted for them.

 

everything I’m hearing says this will he voted on between thanksgiving and New Years

 

The statement that went to congress said:

However, the declassified whistleblower complaint sent to Congress last week stated: “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another.”

It was not in line with the original complaint.

 

If they determine there is a reason to vote for impeachment, I hope what you are hearing for timeline is correct!

 

Then maybe I'm not up to speed - I'm not aware of 2 versions of the complaint. Presumably the declassified complaint is what we all saw first? In which case, where is there info about the original?

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/intelligence-watchdog-whistleblower-complaint

 

No way this rolls out to next June, at least on this specific Ukraine issue... The only way it will be delayed past the new year is if the D's feel they absolutely need to hear from a few witnesses who will ignore subpoenas, in which case I think you can make a case of Obstruction of Congress...

I said about a month ago that I expect an impeachment vote in the House before XMAS, and I'll still to that... I have 12/19 in my pool...

 

Fox is tripping, there is nothing inconsistent there.
WB: not firsthand to most of this
IG: WB said they had first and 2nd hand knowledge.

Where is the inconsistency?