Well...Well...
- Thread starter bornaneer
- Start date
What part of "multiple White House Officials" is tripping you up?
What part of "multiple US Government officials" is tripping you up?
What part of this
"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."
is tripping you up?
Like I said in an earlier post, I can't wait for the whistleblower to be forced to give up his respected colleagues who most likely broke confidentiality rules concerning their employment. They are not covered by the whistleblower statute, they can be fired.
Let's hope they aren't friends with HRC because we know what will happen to him/her.
I think the point is that you are trying to make it a bigger deal that somebody told somebody about corruption than the actual corruption. Old Trump trope though....."The real problem is the leakers!"
- The ICIG hadn't read the transcript when he said it was urgent or an issue of national security.
- DNI did not threaten to quit (WaPo fake news)
- There are several falsehoods in the complaint
- Schiff received the complaint on or about 8/12/2019.
- The lawyer is a Hillbag assistant, and was stationed in Ukraine at one point
- The complaint reads as if someone helped the accuser. Fusion GPS? House DNC?
- There was no corruption in the transcript
- It's the Steele dossier all over again
My point is simple, I would venture to say that the whistleblower may have prompted unethical discussions with others, they voiced their personal opinions, and then he/she took their stories, combined them with other stories and created a new narrative. If he/she in fact does decide to go public, they are protected from losing their job, or prosecution, that is part of the whistleblower statute. The gov employees/contractors who gave him/her the information may be prosecuted for those leaks, they are not covered by the statute. They just broke the law. On top of that, it now apparent that Trump did not break the law and what he said is legal.
The whistleblower will get taken care of by the libs, the other others will go down in flames.
I may be missing something in your point. Are you suggesting that the whisteblower, a member of the intel community, cannot speak to other members of the intel community about potentially classified material? Also, the whistleblower didn't leak information, at least not that we know at this point. He or she filed a legal complaint about a concern. That complaint is sitting in a SCIF on Capitol Hill. I don't see the leak of classified information.
It cant be classified information because he didnt witness it. The complaint is all hearsay.
Honestly, that makes no sense. It can be classified information whether he heard it firsthand or from someone else. "Loose lips sink ships," wouldn't hold true if your claim had merit. Anything spoken about and overheard would be hearsay, and hearsay can't be classified, so that wouldn't be a leak?
A conversation between the president and a counterpart would be classified. He couldnt pass classified information if he didnt hear it or witness it. That was my point.
Unless he was briefed about that classified conversation by colleagues who did hear it. It's not a stretch.
Not if they report to the whistleblower. It's entirely possible that this is the way this monitoring of calls works. I've heard (not verified personally) that usually a few intel folks are listening to these calls. They get together to discuss aspects of what they heard to create a synopsis of the call. I'll bet someone oversees that. The whistleblower could easily be that person. In that case, the sharing of information within that call would be normal.
Also, it seems to me, by your model, intel never gets from the person who gathered it to other people in intel to do analysis, reporting, or anything else. If speaking about something classified in the correct environment is not legal, then there's no point in collecting intel of any kind.
I might not be articulating my thoughts on this. The whistleblower is good to go! The employee/contracters who gave the information might be in trouble....and yes, I am reaching with this
Fair enough. It's possible that you are correct if the elements aren't there for the whistleblower to have been told about the call (correct clearance and need to know). In that case, either the whistleblower or the people who spoke to him could be in trouble. I really don't suspect that's the case, because that's something the IG would definitely dive into.
Nothing is tripping me up...Maybe you weren't paying attention today. You need to spend more time watching what certain people had to say while under oath.
As I said earlier.....can't wait to see the "dozen" White house staff that listened to the call have to say. It should be real easy to ID them.
Last edited:
No link.....but I'm sure you can find one.......or if you are lucky maybe CNN will play the tape for you......BUT I wouldn't count on it. Do you watch what Maguire had to say today?
Last edited:
What I am not assuming is that someone filed a whistleblower report. The ICIG reviewed it without citing that the person filing the report had insufficient clearance or no need to know the information in that report. The DNI testified before the Intel Committee that the report was filed legally. I'm failing to see how the whistleblower is in legal trouble.
I don't think the whistleblower is in trouble. Whistleblowers are protected regardless of what their motives are.
Trump just basically said that the person who gave the information to the whistleblower is close to being a spy...that is where this is going to go