Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God Frack this. I can't believe TRUMP is going to get away with another crime because Schiff was so sloppy. I'm done with this garbage. Trump deserves jail, but gets away with everything.
Trump wins again because for all his faults - the democrats are even more corrupt.
Well his statement is actually correct, the WB spoke to one of the house committee's staff who in turn gave guidance as mentioned in your article. Schiff could have mentioned that but he did not come directly before the committee or its members. The aide simply indicated basic guidance I don't see anything more to the claim.
Check page 3, where it expressly defines a "protected disclosure" as "communications of an 'urgent concern' to . . . congressional intelligence committees" and page 4, where it says "To whom do I report the wrongdoing: Personnel have several options for making a protected disclosure, several of which do not require going through your chain of command. They include . . . A congressional intelligence committee or a member of a congressional intelligence committee."
So if we can sum up, a whistleblower went to the House Intelligence Committee, as (s)he was expressly authorized to do by DNI regulations, and was told by an Intelligence Committee staffer to get a lawyer and report it to the Inspector General. The whistleblower does not talk to Schiff or anyone on the committee about the substance of the complaint, much less "coordinate" it with Schiff or let Schiff "craft" it. The whistleblower then subsequently files a complaint with the Trump-appointed IG, who looks into it and not only deems it to be "credible" but also later confirms that the whistleblower filed a proper complaint using the proper procedures. At first, the White House refuses to comply with law and disclose the complaint to Congress but eventually it is released along with a transcript* that largely corroborates the whistleblower's complaint.
If you think this narrative is somehow going to absolve Trump, then I guess that's your prerogative. If it were me, I wouldn't be too keen to hang my hat on it.
TY. The DNI website says a wb can disclose information to an 'authorized recipient' :
1) a government supervisor in the employee`s chain of command, up to and including the head of the employing agency; 2) the IG of the employing agency or IC Element; 3) the Director of National Intelligence (DNI); 4) the ICIG; 5) an employee designated by any of the above officials for the purpose of receiving such disclosures. Authorized recipients are those individuals who can correct the wrongdoing that is reported to them.
I don't see Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee on the list. I guess an employee of the CIA just didn't know he could give the information to the ICIG and needed Schiff's office to help him figure that out and at the same time unintentionally gave Schiff a heads-up on the complaint.
I'm not trying to absolve Trump of anything, but I'm not naĂŻve enough to pretend there aren't connections between the wb, Schiff, and the overall impeach Trump, resistance movement.
TY. The DNI website says a wb can disclose information to an 'authorized recipient' :
1) a government supervisor in the employee`s chain of command, up to and including the head of the employing agency; 2) the IG of the employing agency or IC Element; 3) the Director of National Intelligence (DNI); 4) the ICIG; 5) an employee designated by any of the above officials for the purpose of receiving such disclosures. Authorized recipients are those individuals who can correct the wrongdoing that is reported to them.
I don't see Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee on the list. I guess an employee of the CIA just didn't know he could give the information to the ICIG and needed Schiff's office to help him figure that out and at the same time unintentionally gave Schiff a heads-up on the complaint.
I'm not trying to absolve Trump of anything, but I'm not naĂŻve enough to pretend there aren't connections between the wb, Schiff, and the overall impeach Trump, resistance movement.
Sure. If you want to argue that the Democrats are using the whistleblower complaint to advance their politically-motivated hopes to impeach Trump, I'll hear that argument. But this thread is suggesting that the whistleblower was wrong to go to the House Intelligence Committee for guidance and futher that Schiff somehow concocted or conspired with the whistleblower in the filing of his/her complaint, neither of which appears to be true. Even if Schiff got some wind of the whistleblower complaint early, there is nothing nefarious about it given the circumstances, nor does it change the contents of the complaint itself.
What you or I or anyone believes is irrelevant. Produce some evidence or ****.
It's quite telling that you did not apply this standard to Adam Schiff when he was parading on the nightly news for 2 years claiming/lying that he HAD EVIDENCE of Russian collusion.
The liberal double standard never ceases to amaze.
Interesting how the narrative has changed from "Absolutely nothing untoward happened" to "They got their evidence in a sneaky, underhanded way!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
