Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

Can you imagine the expansion of what is considered as evidence in a trial for high crimes and misdemeanors being expanded to include hearsay evidence just for the purpose of creating a situation such as we have today after the facts are found out to be nothing more than hearsay? This is the fact free world of American political discourse we find ourselves in today. If you got nothing then you can read the room and find some moment that makes your case regardless of the fact that what is said can not be corroborated so you can start an official witch hunt to find the facts to back up the allegation you made. That is a level of despicable discourse like I have never seen before here in America.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Join us, you are not alone
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: machineintelligence

Is this person coming forward with this information a random person in a group of Americans tasked with keeping our elected representatives accountable or is this person a person who others report to who is also tasked with keeping our elected representatives accountablel. Do you have proof either way as you seem to be asking for fact based information.

And as to this ''fact free world of American politics'' ,might that have something to do with our elected official who goes to extreme lengths to hide the very facts you so admire away in super secret servers ?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Imagine for a second that you are the POTUS in a white house full of known leakers and spies. How would you keep your information to insure that it is not exposed willy nilly by any random hyper-partisan person who might come across it? No one has ever done this level of leaking on any president in my recollection other than Donald Trump.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Imagine for a second that you are the POTUS in a white house full of known leakers and spies. How would you keep your information to insure that it is not exposed willy nilly by any random hyper-partisan person who might come across it? No one has ever done this level of leaking on any president in my recollection other than Donald Trump.

Ok, let me see if I have your hypothetical white house correctly. The White House, the center of the government of the United States of America. Have I got that right?

The White House where the most powerful government official in the whole world has access to the deepest level of information in the history of the world. Am I still following you here?

The White House, the presidents office and official meeting place for world leaders...I think we are talking about the same place here.

The White House where the president who promised to drain the swamp, to hire only the best people to replace them and promised to expose the deep state, works tirelessly to make America great again. Yes I'm sure we are talking about the very same place. A place where we would expect to find the tightest of security measures.

So, I guess we agree on what we are talking about when we say, the White House.. So how is it you postulate in your hypothetical world a White House where , how did you put that, oh yeah,

How would you keep your information to insure that it is not exposed willy nilly by any random hyper-partisan person who might come across it?

Willy nilly, random, hyper-partisan person who might come across it?? Are you thinking of Times Square here, maybe Joes Bar and Sometimes Grill on Second Street in Hobokon?

Your link goes further. It says

Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, reported Friday the firsthand knowledge requirement was canned sometime over the past year and change — and while it’s difficult to pin down when, evidence points to August.

“Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,” he wrote.

So Davis says it was secretly changed somewhere between May and August, months before this recent account was made public. Where was Trump when this secret change was made. Where was his Intelligence team ?

Where was Trump's Director of National Intelligence???????

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I can't see hearsay being admitted in to any court case at any level. However, the CIA is basically a spying network, correct?

They investigate information for "intelligence" data so I imagine that for them "hearsay" is at least a lead to be investigated. If it proves to be a valid lead it gets substantiated, or if invalid, dismissed.

If this becomes a court case, the original witness to this phone call must be made to appear in court or it will get tossed out.

They must know who over heard this conversation. Whoever actually heard this had access to the president while he talked or was monitoring it. The list of possible witnesses is likely to be fairly short IMO.

Phage already smacked this down in the first thread about it. What is this, thread number 4? 5?

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I can't see hearsay being admitted in to any court case at any level. However, the CIA is basically a spying network, correct?

Well,,,,,kind of correct. More though it is basically a network that is tasked with securing national security and this I assume includes the White House.

Apparently there is a fair number of people from various backgrounds who are tasked with keeping strict records of White House communications. The memo that Trump released to the press was not a 100% copy of what was said in that phone call but rather a poured over ''rendition'' of that call, poured over and prepared for release by this crew to meet security standards. The CIA man was part of this team and likely one to receive reports from others on the team. I has been pointed out that they reported to him, not that he just simply ''overheard'' secrets being bandied about. Did the other people on this team know he worked for the CIA? Possibly not, but I assume, likely that they did. This was his job and there was no spying about it, just maintaining national security. That is unless one wants to see it as spying.

That fits with this from Trump's choice to act as Director of national Intelligence, Joseph Maguire.

Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, told the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday that the whistleblower had followed exactly the legal procedure in coming forward and that the complaint was "in alignment" with a memo of the call released by the White House on Wednesday.

www.businessinsider.com...

You also suggest

If this becomes a court case, the original witness to this phone call must be made to appear in court or it will get tossed out.
They must know who over heard this conversation. Whoever actually heard this had access to the president while he talked or was monitoring it. The list of possible witnesses is likely to be fairly short IMO.

As to that ''short list'', this has been reported as well.

The whistleblower said the complaint was based on information relayed by "more than half a dozen U.S. officials."

www.businessinsider.com...

Again, this suggests that this CIA guy was not just hearing things but was in a position to have information ''relayed'' to him by this team of which at least 7 had encountered information they thought questionable to pass on to him. So, not that short a list after all.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
a reply to: machineintelligence

Join us, you are not alone
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Closed