Intel Community Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions

You guys have been using Occam's Razor. This is the perfect time.

You assume he is resentful because that fits your narrative. Plus not all of the parts of the complaint have been revealed.

You completely miss the easiest solution.

He is an intelligence officer, he believes what he filed, and he is an American.

trump has put himself above America and the law.



The fact you don't even consider the man is loyal to America shows Putin used trump (and is still using) to drive a wedge.
And if I was going to give a large benefit of the doubt in my beliefs it wouldn't go to trump the chronic liar.

Deep throat feel? Why?

This guy is known to the people who he submitted the complaint to and they know his position.

a resentful cia guy who got passed over for a promotion.... whatever it was....



it sure has a the deep throat feel.



saw a headline that theres another whistle blower from the IRS... don't know the details. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Debunked I said and debunked it was.

I just heard a foot stomp from a guy who is tripping over his lower lip.
Nothing to back up your claim and you're talking drinking again.

You're hebe without a link. I posted recent IG statements, you pouted.

I've called you a liar. Instead of offering any evidence you aren't, you babble.

I posted linked info to back my statements up.

You were you.

This just in.

"Mounting evidence buttresses the facts laid out in whistleblower complaint Oct. 5, 2019 at 3:12 p.m. CDT
Since the revelation of an explosive whistleblower complaint that sparked an impeachment crisis for President Trump, he and his Republican allies have coalesced around a central defense: The document was based on secondhand information, mere hearsay riddled with inaccuracies.

But over the past two weeks, documents, firsthand witness accounts and even statements by Trump himself have emerged that bolster the facts outlined in the extraordinary abuse-of-power complaint.

The description of a July 25 phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine, which formed the heart of the complaint and was still secret at the time the claim was filed in mid-August, matches a rough transcript of the call that the White House released a day before the complaint was made public.

The whistleblower’s assertion that records related to the phone call were transferred to a separate electronic system intended for highly classified material has since been confirmed by White House officials.
And the whistleblower’s narrative of the events that led up to the call — including a shadow campaign undertaken by Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani and the attempts of State Department officials to navigate his activities — have been largely confirmed by the text messages of three diplomats released Friday, as well as Giuliani himself in media interviews.

Independent evidence now supports the central elements laid out in the seven-page document. Even if they disregarded the complaint, legal experts said lawmakers have obtained dramatic testimony and documents that provide ammunition for the whistleblower’s core assertion: that the president of the United States used “the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...2d2_story.html



You're on the run and you are slow.

Nope. Nothing debunked but the Dim scam. That's why Schitt is on the run. Keep drinking. You're running out of blue. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You guys have been using Occam's Razor. This is the perfect time.

You assume he is resentful because that fits your narrative. Plus not all of the parts of the complaint have been revealed.

You completely miss the easiest solution.

He is an intelligence officer, he believes what he filed, and he is an American.


it has been reported he is a registered Democrat.


trump has put himself above America and the law.

really? name one time Trump has put himself above the law or violated the Constitution .. emoluments? that dog won't hunt

The fact you don't even consider the man is loyal to America shows Putin used trump (and is still using) to drive a wedge.
And if I was going to give a large benefit of the doubt in my beliefs it wouldn't go to trump the chronic liar.


still hanging on to that Putin narrative. SAD!!


Deep throat feel? Why?

This guy is known to the people who he submitted the complaint to and they know his position. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

at present the acting DNI Maquire says he doesn't know the identity of this guy. well he's going to testify so a lot of people will know, even if it's closed doors .. everyone on the committee including the Republicans. why is that important? because it will prove if this person had direct knowledge .. or not. given that the IG did remove the requirement that an "urgent" concern must be first hand knowledge .. so that it could be sent to Congress where before it could not, if this person was not in the room then everything he reported is not direct knowledge and Schitthead Schiff will then be forced to call the real sources. or the Republicans on the committee can do that .. you know .. to help Pencilneck out!


i say the complaint info came from someone who has access to the secure server it was stored on. Trump putting that transcript on that server is not a violation and it's not intentionally "hiding" anything. the president has the authority to classify it and the conversations between the president and foreign leaders are privileged. even the media has reported that Trump has been doing this for several years due to leaks. also the Intel community has no mandate to see these transcripts at all. none nada.


so the whistle blower is a patsy to protect someone who does have access, read it and leaked it which is a violation of security protocols and illegal.

You are correct. The dummies in here don't know the law. And they don't care how stupid it makes them look to deny the facts released so far.

The thing is, no one is talking about the actual testimony yet.

To FILE a complaint,

"First-hand knowledge by a whistleblower has never been required since the law protecting intelligence community whistleblowers was enacted."

The complaint FILED contains both first and second-hand knowledge.

"The current complaint was based on both first and second-hand information."

Both quotes come from the Politifact link provided by hebe.


Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Good, where did you read an actual copy of the whistle blower's complaint? Also what constitutes first and second hand knowledge that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?

You're right. I didn't read the politico article.
Why would I?

I read your link and the IC quotes. Your own link proves you wrong.

Your statement " Politico admitted that the IC ADMITTED IT CHANGED THE FORM AND IGNORED ITS OWN STANDING POLICY before" is too funny. Politico admitted that the IC admitted?

That's all covered in the link you posted.

And if you say it isn't, how about a link to the IC "admitting" they did anything to invalidate the complaint? The "federalist" slipped that little word "policy" in there.


You're very own link clearly states he had both first and second-hand knowledge. I posted the relevant quote earlier in the thread.

You must have missed the part where Politico admitted that the IC ADMITTED IT CHANGED THE FORM AND IGNORED ITS OWN STANDING POLICY before Politico began its political spin.

Oh, but the IC rule stipulated that first-hand knowledge was absolutely required before a complaint could be forwarded to Congress, and that shit never happened! Hear-say is inadmissible in an American court room. You can stop your mendacious equivocation. This is a dim-retard setup, and there's nothing honest about it.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're right. I didn't read the politico article.
Why would I?

I read your link and the IC quotes. Your own link proves you wrong.

Your statement " Politico admitted that the IC ADMITTED IT CHANGED THE FORM AND IGNORED ITS OWN STANDING POLICY before" is too funny. Politico admitted that the IC admitted?

That's all covered in the link you posted.

And if you say it isn't, how about a link to the IC "admitting" they did anything to invalidate the complaint? The "federalist" slipped that little word "policy" in there.


You're very own link clearly states he had both first and second-hand knowledge. I posted the relevant quote earlier in the thread. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The "relevant" quote was the one stating that IC complaints WOULD NOT BE FORWARDED TO CONGRESS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS CITED IN THE COMPLAINT. That would mean ALL events. Your equivocation to the contrary is bullshit.

so did the whistle blowhard have 1st hand account?


from what I'm reading and hearing, doesn't look like it. its all 2nd and 3rd hand info.


so, if he cheeked yes to 1st hand info, he's lying about it.


from what I understand, 1st hand info is allowed to go forward in the whistle blower process. 2nd hand info is not allowed to go forward in this process.

at present the acting DNI Maquire says he doesn't know the identity of this guy. well he's going to testify so a lot of people will know, even if it's closed doors .. everyone on the committee including the Republicans. why is that important? because it will prove if this person had direct knowledge .. or not.


given that the IG did remove the requirement that an "urgent" concern must be first hand knowledge .. so that it could be sent to Congress where before it could not,
Wrong....again. Go back to post #7 of this thread. The form was changed, not the policy or law. Which is the basis of the claim in this thread.

But that doesn't apply in any way to your claim that the change affects the complaint. Because the form he filled out wasn't the new form.
He filled out the old form and checked the box for first-hand knowledge and the box for heard others talking about it (second-hand knowledge).

Did you finally catch that? He checked both boxes. They changed the form after he submitted the complaint.
And they clearly state that having first-hand knowledge was never a requirement to submit a complaint.

Plus the complaint is said to cover more than just the phone call. I have seen no mention of any other subjects.



if this person was not in the room then everything he reported is not direct knowledge and Schitthead Schiff will then be forced to call the real sources. or the Republicans on the committee can do that .. you know .. to help Pencilneck out!


i say the complaint info came from someone who has access to the secure server it was stored on. Trump putting that transcript on that server is not a violation and it's not intentionally "hiding" anything. the president has the authority to classify it and the conversations between the president and foreign leaders are privileged. even the media has reported that Trump has been doing this for several years due to leaks. also the Intel community has no mandate to see these transcripts at all. none nada.


so the whistle blower is a patsy to protect someone who does have access, read it and leaked it which is a violation of security protocols and illegal. Whatever you guess....I mean say.




Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Who said I read an actual copy of the complaint?
Plus I don't need to know what constitutes first or second-hand knowledge a crime has been or will be committed in this case.
Any idea that you have about the 2 types of knowledge is immaterial too.

Because we didn't fill out the complaint. The person who did fill out the complaint checked the box claiming first-hand knowledge and also checked the box that claimed to have heard the info from others (second-hand knowledge). I will defer to his understanding of the application of the statements in this case.
The link the hanky provided (which I took relevant portions to back up my arguments in numerous posts in this thread) covers the ICIG comments about a few details of the complaint and the fact that they changed the form, after the WB filed his, for clarity of understanding.
No policy or law was changed.

Good, where did you read an actual copy of the whistle blower's complaint? Also what constitutes first and second hand knowledge that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed? Originally Posted by Levianon17

The "Out-Of_Context/Clueless/Moron" speaks up.

You didn't address any of your politico bullshit. And your relevant quote is only relevant to you.

Read your own link, moron. Your "relevant" quote is discussed. And they explained what you don't seem to understand.

Stop wearing your ignorance.....I guess that is too much to ask for.

Remember, you are moot.

You not understanding or disagreeing with something doesn't matter.

The "relevant" quote was the one stating that IC complaints WOULD NOT BE FORWARDED TO CONGRESS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS CITED IN THE COMPLAINT. That would mean ALL events. Your equivocation to the contrary is bullshit. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Who said I read an actual copy of the complaint?
Plus I don't need to know what constitutes first or second-hand knowledge a crime has been or will be committed in this case.
Any idea that you have about the 2 types of knowledge is immaterial too.

Because we didn't fill out the complaint. The person who did fill out the complaint checked the box claiming first-hand knowledge and also checked the box that claimed to have heard the info from others (second-hand knowledge). I will defer to his understanding of the application of the statements in this case.
The link the hanky provided (which I took relevant portions to back up my arguments in numerous posts in this thread) covers the ICIG comments about a few details of the complaint and the fact that they changed the form, after the WB filed his, for clarity of understanding.
No policy or law was changed.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

What part of "the form stipulated the policy" do you not understand, masterdickmuncher?

The "Out-Of_Context/Clueless/Moron" speaks up.

You didn't address any of your politico bullshit. And your relevant quote is only relevant to you.

Read your own link, moron. Your "relevant" quote is discussed. And they explained what you don't seem to understand.

Stop wearing your ignorance.....I guess that is too much to ask for.

Remember, you are moot.

You not understanding or disagreeing with something doesn't matter. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

What part of "the form stipulated the policy" do you not understand, masterdickmuncher?

Who said I read an actual copy of the complaint?
Plus I don't need to know what constitutes first or second-hand knowledge a crime has been or will be committed in this case.
Any idea that you have about the 2 types of knowledge is immaterial too.

Because we didn't fill out the complaint. The person who did fill out the complaint checked the box claiming first-hand knowledge and also checked the box that claimed to have heard the info from others (second-hand knowledge). I will defer to his understanding of the application of the statements in this case.
The link the hanky provided (which I took relevant portions to back up my arguments in numerous posts in this thread) covers the ICIG comments about a few details of the complaint and the fact that they changed the form, after the WB filed his, for clarity of understanding.
No policy or law was changed.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

then why was his first complaint rejected? i never said the law was changed. you keep blathering about that. in fact, the law, if you read it .. and i have .. doesn't say shit about the rules. the ICIG defines the rules for complaints. but you knew that too, right?

the whistleblower's contention he has both first and second hand knowledge will be known soon. interesting that the paragraph requiring first hand knowledge was removed at all, isn't it? does that allow the complainant to check both boxes without consequence even if he really doesn't have first hand knowledge .. just that he claims he knows someone else who does?

you know, most posters here will agree on, except you .. is that debating you in your overly convoluted and accidentally or intentionally obfuscated posts is worthless. you meander along like Rachel Madcow and succeed in saying nothing.


BAHHHAAHAAAAAA

He claims he did on the form.

It doesn't matter what you're reading or hearing. The only posted info (at this time) from the ICIG is that the WB checked a box on the complaint claiming first-hand knowledge. He also checked the box claiming second-hand knowledge.

Bearing that in mind, please tell me your sources.
So I can ignore them.

There is no proof or info that confirms or denies he has that knowledge.

Glad to see you have an open mind.

If only we all "knew" what you "know".

so did the whistle blowhard have 1st hand account?


from what I'm reading and hearing, doesn't look like it. its all 2nd and 3rd hand info.


so, if he cheeked yes to 1st hand info, he's lying about it.


from what I understand, 1st hand info is allowed to go forward in the whistle blower process. 2nd hand info is not allowed to go forward in this process. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Nothing you are saying is germane to the OP. And of course the law says nothing about the rules...because the rules are called policies. So you read the law but not the policies. Figures.
Policy determines how the law is implemented. Forms convey how policy is followed.
I keep saying the law or the policies used weren't changed. because you keep claiming there was a rule (policy, moron) change. There wasn't.
You refuse to read the link that the hanky has supplied which would answer your questions.

But you continue to whine about changes made after submission of the form. Which means nothing. And since you can't express or understand a clear statement, your critique of my posts ranks right up there with your staying on topic and the reliability of your "facts". Jack squat.
I accept you can't understand some of my posts. Since I'm not going to dumb them down, I'll deal with it.


The problem is that you are frequently wrong and you can't/won't include links. I try to eliminate that possibility by posting links that back up my claims.
Like a true trumpy you can't/won't read those links. So you can maintain (in your trumpy mind) plausible deniability (hubris).

then why was his first complaint rejected? i never said the law was changed. you keep blathering about that. in fact, the law, if you read it .. and i have .. doesn't say shit about the rules. the ICIG defines the rules for complaints. but you knew that too, right?

the whistleblower's contention he has both first and second hand knowledge will be known soon. interesting that the paragraph requiring first hand knowledge was removed at all, isn't it? does that allow the complainant to check both boxes without consequence even if he really doesn't have first hand knowledge .. just that he claims he knows someone else who does?

you know, most posters here will agree on, except you .. is that debating you in your overly convoluted and accidentally or intentionally obfuscated posts is worthless. you meander along like Rachel Madcow and succeed in saying nothing.


BAHHHAAHAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Nothing you are saying is germane to the OP. And of course the law says nothing about the rules...because the rules are called policies. So you read the law but not the policies. Figures.
Policy determines how the law is implemented. Forms convey how policy is followed.
I keep saying the law or the policies used weren't changed. because you keep claiming there was a rule (policy, moron) change. There wasn't.
You refuse to read the link that the hanky has supplied which would answer your questions.

But you continue to whine about changes made after submission of the form. Which means nothing. And since you can't express or understand a clear statement, your critique of my posts ranks right up there with your staying on topic and the reliability of your "facts". Jack squat.
I accept you can't understand some of my posts. Since I'm not going to dumb them down, I'll deal with it.


The problem is that you are frequently wrong and you can't/won't include links. I try to eliminate that possibility by posting links that back up my claims.
Like a true trumpy you can't/won't read those links. So you can maintain (in your trumpy mind) plausible deniability (hubris). Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You're an insufferble jackass, masterdickmuncher. Every intelligent person KNOWS that when the bosses create a form that tells the underlings that first-hand accounts are required -- then first-hand accounts are REQUIRED. In this instance, the IC bosses are in on this coup attempt; hence, they changed the policy on the sly at exactly the moment such a change would accommodate this miscreant "whistleblower".


It's conspicuously notable that first-hand accounts were required during the Odumbo era.

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.

Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.

I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.

Nothing you are saying is germane to the OP. And of course the law says nothing about the rules...because the rules are called policies. So you read the law but not the policies. Figures.
Policy determines how the law is implemented. Forms convey how policy is followed.
I keep saying the law or the policies used weren't changed. because you keep claiming there was a rule (policy, moron) change. There wasn't.
You refuse to read the link that the hanky has supplied which would answer your questions.


have a link on me .. originally posted by the OP .. gnadfly .. you might find it interesting .. unless you consider it far right propaganda



https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01...new-questions/


"On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday"


now what were you saying about policies ???



But you continue to whine about changes made after submission of the form. Which means nothing. And since you can't express or understand a clear statement, your critique of my posts ranks right up there with your staying on topic and the reliability of your "facts". Jack squat.
I accept you can't understand some of my posts. Since I'm not going to dumb them down, I'll deal with it.


The problem is that you are frequently wrong and you can't/won't include links. I try to eliminate that possibility by posting links that back up my claims.


but what about the times i'm right??? bahaaaa



Like a true trumpy you can't/won't read those links. So you can maintain (in your trumpy mind) plausible deniability (hubris). Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

speaking of germans








you will now reply with your usual obfuscated bloviating blather while blithering about nothing.


thank you valued poster!