Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

Even if the allegation raised in "the Federalist" article is accurate, it is irrelevant:

• Linda Tripp did not have first-hand knowledge of Bill Clinton's escapades, yet the information was accurate and important.
• Most intelligence agency information (at least the initial information of a situation or event) is not first-hand.
• Most news reporting -- everything from traffic accidents to political scandals -- in not first-hand.

To demand first-hand information for a whistle-blower complaint is foolish and unreasonable and, if this story is correct, should have been changed.

 

She had taped phone calls between herself and Ms. Lewinski where Ms. Lewinski blurted out everything to her.

Which is why most of what they "report" should be regarded with skepticism. How many times have news outlets been wrong? Answer: Plenty! Most "journalists" today are not objective in the least - from the New York Times to ABC to CBS to CNN this has been demonstrated over and over again.

This "whistlebrower" is operating off innuendo and subterfuge. He/she won't come forward and identify themselves, to put their job on the line for their convictions. What good would such testimony be in a court of law? Answer: No good! (Which is why "heresay" evidence is not admittible in legal proceedings).

This is just another way to get President Trump and has parallels with President Obama changing long standing rules as to who could get intelligence information in the last days of his administration.

 

And the whistleblower claims to have gotten his information from those who were involved firsthand. So, essentially the same thing. Plus, the inspector general did his own investigation and found the concern credible. So that’s stronger than the recordings of Linda Tripp.

Sure. But the recollections of the conversation (Improperly labeled “the transcript” released by the Trump Administration confirms every allegation in the whistleblower’s report — except for the part that claims that other information has been improperly archived in the ultra-secure server, and we wouldn’t expect that to be mention in the recollections of the conversation.

So now there is no reason to be skeptical of the main thrust of the whistleblower’s report.

‘if you are dealing with long-standing reputable news outlets, they are occasionally incorrect. That is to be expected when people are trying to do coverups and when folks like Corey Lewandowski lie to the press.

‘if you are dealing with random websites on the internet, most of them have false information or misleading content to deceive the reader.

The whistleblower — according to the inspector general — is scrupulously following established procedure and statutes.

This is not intended to be a court of law, this is passing evidence to the appropriate authority for investigation. 9 think the ins-extortion general knows the name of the whistleblower. The whole point of the statute is to give an opportunity for persons to report concerns for quiet investigation to see if their concerns have merit. It is a basic system used to root out corruption in business and government.

I hate to have to point out the obvious, but:
(1) We are not yet to a legal proceeding. We are in the fact-finding stage.
(2) The inspector general and Congress will collect evidence and make determinations as to whether or not we need to move to a legal proceeding.
(3) The whistleblower’s job is essentially over since their role is to call certain things to the inspector general’s attention.

if the President hasn’t done anything wrong, he shouldn’t worry about it. In fact, he should be cooperating with the investigation instead of illegally hiding the whistleblower’s complaint and the inspector general’s report from the intelligence committee in violation of the law.

 

To which investigations are you referring?

 

No, not the same thing. On the tape it is Ms. Lewinsky's own words - you can't get "first hand" much more than that.

If this was so serious, why didn't anyone involved in actually listening in to the phone call step up? Who died and made this "whistleblower" the point person in gathering evidence from others about a phone call that the President was involved in?

This sounds (like as has been reported) a highly political individual who was looking for some dirt on the President. This isn't the first time that someone from the deep state has released phone calls that included the President, and this kind of stuff from these moles is damaging not only to the President as he seeks to conduct his constitutionally mandated foreign policy, but to the nation as a whole.

If these people are so against the President and his policies then they should do the honorable thing and resign, instead of endlessly trying to kneecap him every chance they get. He won the presidency in a free and fair election according to our constitution and it's time these people learn to accept that reality and move on.

Their candidate lost, so they need to regroup and try to do better next time instead of working to destroy the republic which we all should hold dear. Good grief, enough is enough!

Facts from highly political people about a president they hate, despise and abhor? Haaaaa! That's the funniest thing I have read all day.

A determination by this Congress as to whether or not we need to move to a legal proceeding? Haaaaa! That's the 2nd funniest thing I have read all day.

He is. He released the transcript and it is clear there is nothing there. Now, can we have an investigation about the Democrats and their nefarious Ukrainian and Russian connections?

He hid nothing. He was trying to protect his call from the same type of moles who released his calls earlier in his tenure.

 

If it comes to a trial, the Senate can simply require all evidence presented be first hand. If they have the guts.

 

The claim in the OP is false, so this whole thread is moot.

I originally suspected the story was false because it made no sense to have a rule like that.

Notice, once again, who is spreading desperate conspiracy theories to confuse the public. These folks should not be in public service if they can’t tell the difference between truth and lies.

 

Of course. A whistleblower does not have to have firsthand knowledge. That's ALWAYS been true since the form is based on a law, not the wording on the form.

Moreover, the whistleblower actually used the old form (the one in use from May 24, 2018) and appropriately indicated how he/she had received the information (both first-hand and second hand knowledge). The Inspector General took that information, conducted an investigation, and apparently received a lot of first-hand information which substantiated the claim.

No, it is based on reality. Read the IG statement yourself:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

I read it and comprehended it and hoped everyone else would read it and comprehend it.

Apparently, in your rush to attack, you did not comprehend plain English.

You need to be more humble in your dealings with others, as well as carefully check the sources of everything you read. Otherwise, liars will control your mind.

 

I didn't ignore it. Your argument was irrelevant, PLUS I did point out that the whistleblower had first-hand information AND the IG conducted an investigation and found the claim credible BEFORE they transmitted the information.

But that was a nice try at deflection. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Do I need to go through the exercise of taking apart your claims one by one, or have you had enough?

 

But most of what the "whistleblower" had was second hand information. This "whistleblower" was not one of the people who listened in to the President's call. So since you are back on this topic please answer this following:

If this was such a serious thing (and we now know it wasn't since the transcript was released and we have read it our selves) why didn't any of the actual witnesses file the complaint?

Who died and made this "whistleblower" person the point man on filing "whistleblower" complaints?

Does not this constant leaking of phone calls by Trump haters in the government damage the Presidents ability to perform his foreign policy duties?

If these people are having such problems with the President's policies, should they not do the honorable thing and resign instead of continuing to work for the legitimately elected leader of our government?

 

Just one question; How many times does it take to be accused falsely before he SHOULD worry about it??
At some point it SHOULD become obvious that, since ALL the accusations are generated from the same source, that it is the source that should be investigated!

Suppose that you were accused of theft, and just as soon as the investigation is complete with a positive result, you are immediately accused of assault on a neighbor, & soon's that one has cleared you, you are accused of adultery!! All this with EVERY accusation coming from the same source.
Yeah, don't worry, cause you know you are innocent! Bovine Excrement!!!!

 

Perhaps we didn’t read the same whistle blower complaint, but the accusation that the Trump admin mislabeled the transcript appears unfounded. From the complaint: “…the official word for word transcript of the call that was produced—as customary—by the White House Situation Room.”

However, the notion that the transcript confirms the allegations is simply nonsense, almost to the level of Schiff’s devilish parody of the transcript. Both amount to further demonizing and witch hunting, though I expect it from the Dems. Everyone should be highly skeptical that they will ever be truthful.

 

My biggest question of all this is why didn't any of those people who were actually listening in to the phone call file the complaint and why was this individual who is claiming whistleblower status was the one? I think it played out like this because it was all a setup between this "whistleblower" and Adam Schiff and the Intelligence Committee.

In a story in the New York Times today it was revealed that the "whistleblower" went to Schiff's committee for "guidance" on how to proceed. This despite the fact that all Federal employees are surely aware of the whistleblower law and how a complaint is made. One simply goes to the pertinent website, fill out the required forms and submit them. But no, our intrepid hero, a supposedly smart CIA employee had to go to Adam Schiff for some help. Yeah, right.


Mr. Schiff has obviously been lying all week by telling everyone that there was no contact between his committee and the whistleblower. A setup my friends, this is all this was and Schiff & Co. are part and parcel of it.