Breaking: DOJ Launches Criminal Investigation Seeks Charges In Russia Probe

a reply to: Gryphon66

There are several instances of Presidents, and even Joe Biden, saying give us this, or you won't get that.

But IF Trump said to Ukraine (even in a back-door fashion) Investigate DNC/Biden, or you won't get $$$$, it must have been said in jest. Ukraine received the military aid money from the U.S. just 2 months after this alleged blackmail took place.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This was from the IG statement:

In June 2019, the newly hired Director for the Center for Protected Disclosures entered on duty. Thus, the Center for Protected Disclosures has been reviewing the forms provided to whistleblowers who wish to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees. 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.

The ICIG’s Center for Protected Disclosures has developed three new forms entitled, “Report of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse UNCLASSIFIED Intake Form”; “Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form-UNCLASSIFIED”; and “External Review Panel (ERP) Request Form – UNCLASSIFIED.” These three new forms are now available on the ICIG’s open website and are in the process of being added to the ICIG’s classified system. The ICIG will continue to update and clarify its forms and its websites to ensure its guidance to whistleblowers is clear and strictly complies with statutory requirements. Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern

So a few weeks before the complait was filed, the ICIG was reviewing 'what could be read' as a whistleblower needing first hand information and deciding that wass incorrect and then created 3 new forms.

thefederalist.com...

IG Press release

Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August.

Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior.

When pressed on the curious changes and attempts to obscure the timeline of his revisions, Atkinson refused to explain why the forms were backdated to August even though they were not made until September. The ICIG previously stated that it changed its forms and guidance “in response to recent press inquiries regarding” the anti-Trump complaint, of which Congress was not even notified until the second week of September. The new forms, which were not uploaded to the ICIG website until September 24, nonetheless stated that the revisions were made back in August.

Now all the 'fact checkers' say NO, no form was changed. However they omit the fact that the current form was 'clarified' upon request and 3 new forms were created.

a reply to: UKTruth

The new Director and his team made some new forms to replace prior forms that weren't clear?

The bastard.

See Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended for the actual law.

ETA: Oh, I know you won't actually look it up ... here you go ...

ETA2: My bad, copied the wrong law for you. See Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and also 50 USC § 3033

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The new Director and his team made some new forms to replace prior forms that weren't clear?

The bastard.

See Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended for the actual law.

ETA: Oh, I know you won't actually look it up ... here you go ...

ETA2: My bad, copied the wrong law for you. See Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and also 50 USC § 3033

Yes new forms and clarification - after the news broke - that the language in the old form was unclear.
That was the point.

a reply to: UKTruth

Ah.... love that creative placement of citations and quotes in your post.

Here's what the letter from the IG actually said (your credible source not The Federalist):

In addition, the law required the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community within 14 calendar days to determine whether information with respect to the urgent concern “appeared credible.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(B). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined, after conducting a preliminary review, that there were reasonable grounds to believe the urgent concern appeared credible.

and further ...

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.

Emphasis mine. So, again I put the question to you ... did "the Democrats" change the law arbitrarily?

Or not.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The new Director and his team made some new forms to replace prior forms that weren't clear?

The bastard.

See Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended for the actual law.

ETA: Oh, I know you won't actually look it up ... here you go ...

ETA2: My bad, copied the wrong law for you. See Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and also 50 USC § 3033

Yes new forms and clarification - after the news broke - that the language in the old form was unclear.
That was the point.

So your claim that ...

originally posted by: UKTruth

The whistleblower rules were changed to enable the gossip to be filed as a whistleblower complaint.

... is not true?

No, the rules weren't changed, and the rules are encoded in Federal law as above.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66

There are several instances of Presidents, and even Joe Biden, saying give us this, or you won't get that.

But IF Trump said to Ukraine (even in a back-door fashion) Investigate DNC/Biden, or you won't get $$$$, it must have been said in jest. Ukraine received the military aid money from the U.S. just 2 months after this alleged blackmail took place.

Please note that I have repeatedly said I don't think that the Trump Ukraine call is illegal due to the President's scope of diplomatic powers.

I didn't call it a quid pro quo ... Mick Mulvaney did and told us to get over it.

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

If Trump's use of Executive diplomatic powers to encourage the criminal investigation of a (potential) political rival is purported to be election tampering, then how is the opposition's majority party in the House's use of Congressional oversight power to investigate the incumbent in that same election not also election tampering? It almost seems worse, because the latter would be a conspiracy to tamper in the election. It's like we're now in Bizarro world.

Further, if the OP is accurate, I imagine that congress' attempts at subpoenaing documents from the DOJ and the White House, in support of their impeachment inquiry, will be complicated by the fact that many of those documents, I'm sure, are also now the subject of an active criminal investigation.

Which leaves us exactly where we were in the start. Either House Democrats will be engaged in an active criminal conspiracy to witness tamper, or Trump's DOJ will be obstructing justice by refusing disclose the details of an active criminal investigation. Catch-22.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The new Director and his team made some new forms to replace prior forms that weren't clear?

The bastard.

See Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended for the actual law.

ETA: Oh, I know you won't actually look it up ... here you go ...

ETA2: My bad, copied the wrong law for you. See Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and also 50 USC § 3033

Yes new forms and clarification - after the news broke - that the language in the old form was unclear.
That was the point.

So your claim that ...

originally posted by: UKTruth

The whistleblower rules were changed to enable the gossip to be filed as a whistleblower complaint.

... is not true?

No, the rules weren't changed, and the rules are encoded in Federal law as above.

Three new forms in August, so yes there was a change.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your emphasis is simply the IG saying again that what appears to be the rules in the form are not actually the rules.
That was his convenently timed, after the event, clarification.
Clarification was so badly needed, apparently, that 3 new forms were created - all at a time when, yes, Democrats were discussing the complaint with the 'whistleblower'

a reply to: Zelun

I've said multiple times that I don't think that what Trump said to Zelensky is illegal, and I certainly don't think that impeachment is illegal.

Since you asked.

Are you saying taht documents about the President's alleged quid pro quo call in 2019 will be relevant to the 2016 FISA warrants possibly under criminal investigation? How so?

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your emphasis is simply the IG saying again that what appears to be the rules in the form are not actually the rules.
That was his convenently timed, after he event, clarification.
Clarification was so badly needed, apparently, that 3 new forms were created - all at a time when, yes, Democrats were discussing the complaint with the 'whistleblower'

I quoted the IG's official statement and referred to Federal law. You quoted The Federalist.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The new Director and his team made some new forms to replace prior forms that weren't clear?

The bastard.

See Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended for the actual law.

ETA: Oh, I know you won't actually look it up ... here you go ...

ETA2: My bad, copied the wrong law for you. See Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and also 50 USC § 3033

Yes new forms and clarification - after the news broke - that the language in the old form was unclear.
That was the point.

So your claim that ...

originally posted by: UKTruth

The whistleblower rules were changed to enable the gossip to be filed as a whistleblower complaint.

... is not true?

No, the rules weren't changed, and the rules are encoded in Federal law as above.

Three new forms in August, so yes there was a change.

So, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 was changed in August 2019?

Nope.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The new Director and his team made some new forms to replace prior forms that weren't clear?

The bastard.

See Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended for the actual law.

ETA: Oh, I know you won't actually look it up ... here you go ...

ETA2: My bad, copied the wrong law for you. See Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and also 50 USC § 3033

Yes new forms and clarification - after the news broke - that the language in the old form was unclear.
That was the point.

So your claim that ...

originally posted by: UKTruth

The whistleblower rules were changed to enable the gossip to be filed as a whistleblower complaint.

... is not true?

No, the rules weren't changed, and the rules are encoded in Federal law as above.

Three new forms in August, so yes there was a change.

So, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 was changed in August 2019?

Nope.

3 new forms and clarification of existing wording after the event.
The forms are not the Act. Noone mentioned the Act being changed.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The new Director and his team made some new forms to replace prior forms that weren't clear?

The bastard.

See Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended for the actual law.

ETA: Oh, I know you won't actually look it up ... here you go ...

ETA2: My bad, copied the wrong law for you. See Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and also 50 USC § 3033

Yes new forms and clarification - after the news broke - that the language in the old form was unclear.
That was the point.

So your claim that ...

originally posted by: UKTruth

The whistleblower rules were changed to enable the gossip to be filed as a whistleblower complaint.

... is not true?

No, the rules weren't changed, and the rules are encoded in Federal law as above.

Three new forms in August, so yes there was a change.

So, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 was changed in August 2019?

Nope.

3 new forms and clarification of existing wording after the event.
The forms are not the Act. Noone mentioned the Act being changed.

You said the rules were changed as I quoted.

The rules you're referring to are based on the Act.

1. Was the Act changed in 2019?

2. Does the Act require first-hand knowledge to file a complaint?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think that in the coming weeks and months this will become clear to you. The interests of some in the Ukrainian government would have been aligned with the presidency of HRC. So certain elements in the Ukrainian government sought to influence the 2016 US election by leaking the notorious "black ledger" that didn't sink directly, but ultimately lead to the sinking of the SS Paul Manafort. A 'consultant' of the DNC named Alexandra Chalupa, fed info to the DNC regarding Manafort's former work for Viktor Yanukovych, the deposed former president of the Ukraine, and Chalupa went so far as soliciting the assistance of the Ukrainian Embassy at the behest of the DNC. It is unclear whether they complied. But who do you suppose carried out the bulk of the opposition research regarding Manafort? None other than Fusion GPS, read: Nellie Ohr, wife of Bruce Ohr, former associate deputy attorney general at the US DOJ.

This is the connect to the Steele Dossier, and the FISA warrants taken out against Carter Page.

No matter which forms were used, the ‘whistleblower lied on the form when he or she stated that they didn’t contact the Congress before submitting their complaint.
Then Adam Schiff lied about his contact with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being submitted.
Two liar, with one running the show right now.
How would their testimony hold up in a court of law?

a reply to: Zelun

I hope whatever "it" is becomes clearer to all of us with access to actual facts and so forth in court.

You're asserting the Steele Dossier provided information on Manafort who was Trump's campaign manager.

Further, you're claiming that this information provided one basis for FISA warrants.

Was the info good on Manafort and or Page? (i.e. factual, relevant, etc.).

Which law/laws do you think Barr-Durham will argue were broken?

originally posted by: butcherguy
No matter which forms were used, the ‘whistleblower lied on the form when he or she stated that they didn’t contact the Congress before submitting their complaint.
Then Adam Schiff lied about his contact with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being submitted.
Two liar, with one running the show right now.
How would their testimony hold up in a court of law?

Perhaps we'll see.

I have a feeling there will be lots of "suicides"before trial starts.