Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Second whistleblower (with first hand knowledge) is now go [https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/06/politics/second-whistleblower-trump-ukraine/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F].

I, for one can't wait for the Olympian mental gymnastics from the faithful as to why they don't believe this one.

Then, the Simone Biles-level of floorwork when it all comes out to be just as damning as these whistleblowers say... how it STILL wouldn't warrant impeachment somehow in the faithful's minds.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, it says Giuliani cancelled his trip... because he wasn't getting to speak to who he wanted to. But I have to admit my apologies, I had more than one article up and I accidentally c'n'ped the link to the wrong one.

Can I see the correct source then? Cause the closest I found to Zelenskyy canceling the meeting were claims that advisors to Zelenskyy advised against it.

At best, that's a colossal conflict of interest.

At worst, it's bollocks: surely it would be the easiest thing in the world for the State Dept. to clear this up and say Giuliani was officially working on their behalf. Why haven't they?

The State Department Inspector General briefed the investigating congressional committees on Giuliani last Wednesday. Also, the majority of those texts were sent by employees of the State Department. US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker reports to the Secretary of State, and is the exact person who introduced Yermak to Giuliani.

But we can go back to that phone call. Again, it is Trump who brings up the investigations in that conversation - the "favor", remember - with Zelenskyy. In other words, Trump knows what's going on when he has that call. Of course he does. Do you think Giuliani has been fishing in Ukraine for over a year and not told his employer why and what's going on? How do you seriously pretend Trump is unaware?

Trump has been asking many heads of state for literally the same favor. How do you seriously pretend Trump planned this conversation before it happened?

That's some grand hypocrisy, there. Most of your "arguments" have been mere speculation.

I know! At one point I described my speculation as the most generous interpretation for Trump. I understand there are things I don't know and I'm trying to fill in the blanks in the way that makes the most sense. And I'm having a lot of fun watching further evidence come in and slot neatly into my theories here.

What you don't recognize is that you are also speculating. When you said that Trump's statements in the phone call are like a mafioso shakedown because of unstated undertones, that's speculation. When you suggested Ukrainians would certainly have known the aid money was frozen before that phone call, that was speculation. When you say now that Trump must have told those officials to tell Zelenskyy to bring up the investigation in their phone call, that's speculation. You don't have evidence for these things, you're just speculating that they happened to fill in gaps in the information we have.

It just so happens that the evidence so far is fitting my suggestions better than yours. I promise, if one of these texts had read "sell that investigation hard cause Trump's withholding military aid", I would be here saying "well, I was wrong!" And frankly, that still might happen, you might still be right, but so far it's looking pretty good for my arguments. And your unwillingness to say "yeah, that explanation is plausible" is just a little embarrassing.

Second whistleblower (with first hand knowledge) is now go [https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/06/politics/second-whistleblower-trump-ukraine/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F].

I, for one can't wait for the Olympian mental gymnastics from the faithful as to why they don't believe this one.

Then, the Simone Biles-level of floorwork when it all comes out to be just as damning as these whistleblowers say... how it STILL wouldn't warrant impeachment somehow in the faithful's minds.

I mean, if this second whistleblower knows something more incriminating than the phone call happened, maybe this is relevant. But the record of the call was released, I don't think another whistleblower telling us that it happened makes literally any difference at all.

 

[Agema]

Can I see the correct source then? Cause the closest I found to Zelenskyy canceling the meeting were claims that advisors to Zelenskyy advised against it.

Firstly, I never stated Zelenskky cancelled it: I said he wouldn't speak to Giuliani. If you already agree that as you say above, then me providing a source is unnecessary (and saves me time).

The State Department Inspector General briefed the investigating congressional committees on Giuliani last Wednesday. Also, the majority of those texts were sent by employees of the State Department. US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker reports to the Secretary of State, and is the exact person who introduced Yermak to Giuliani.

The State Dept IG states Giuliani sent documents. However, to the best of my knowledge, he provides no clear verification that Giuliani was acting, then or subsequently, in an official capacity for the State Department. If he was not, I do not believe it is appropriate for State Dept. employees to be arranging his contacts with Ukrainian officials and thus assisting him in digging up political dirt.

And like I said, even if Giuliani was acting in an official capacity, this is obviously a massive conflict of interest: it's begging for corruption.

Trump has been asking many heads of state for literally the same favor. How do you seriously pretend Trump planned this conversation before it happened?

Well, it's like this. Trump is bothering heads of state for politically favourable investigations. All his staff know this, and it's their job to carry out his wishes. So his staff are working to extract those investigations and what we're seeing is the evidence of their efforts.

Given a head of state to talk to, Trump obviously asks him for an investigation; Trump's staff, for obvious reasons, have primed Zelenskyy on what Trump wants to hear. We also know that ensuring investigations being promised were key to the phone call even being agreed in the first place, which means someone (Giuliani, the evidence would suggest) has told Trump that Zelenskyy is willing to play ball. Trump is thus obviously an active player in what's going on here, and he's equally obviously the boss where the buck stops at.

What you don't recognize is that you are also speculating.

I'm well aware. You check my language and I'm using a lot of terms like "suggests", "indicates", etc. I'm doing so for a reason. But I'm cleaving closer to the evidence currently on hand.

It just so happens that the evidence so far is fitting my suggestions better than yours.

It's your opinion it fits your view better than mine. Obviously, I disagree with that assessment strongly.

 

[tstorm823]

Firstly, I never stated Zelenskky cancelled it: I said he wouldn't speak to Giuliani. If you already agree that as you say above, then me providing a source is unnecessary (and saves me time).

No, it saves you the heartache of admitting an error. If you've only seen what I've see, you read that advisors to Zelenskyy disapproved of meeting with Giuliani. That does not say he refused the meeting. Now if you've really seen something I haven't, perhaps he did refuse the meeting. But I haven't seen it, and I have every reason to believe you're trying to sweep the point under a rug and hope I forget about it.

The State Dept IG states Giuliani sent documents. However, to the best of my knowledge, he provides no clear verification that Giuliani was acting, then or subsequently, in an official capacity for the State Department. If he was not, I do not believe it is appropriate for State Dept. employees to be arranging his contacts with Ukrainian officials and thus assisting him in digging up political dirt.

You only know about the documents because the press only got those. It was a closed door briefing, we don't know what was said.

Well, it's like this. Trump is bothering heads of state for politically favourable investigations.

I don't think this is even true. Elizabeth Warren is the preeminent Democratic nominee. The polls are just starting to catch up, but I've known this for months, the Vegas betting odds know it, Biden was always going to crash. And if the Democratic nominee isn't Joe Biden, the president opening a seemingly partisan investigation into a Democratic politician is terrible for the campaign. That's just corruption for Democrats to rally around.

But that's not the favor Trump is asking for. Trump is asking for an investigation into meddling in the 2016 election. He's having the Attorney General investigate the sources that provided the intelligence that lead to the FBI spying on Trump's campaign. Yes, that is absolutely something that Trump has a personal fixation on, and without him in office, that investigation probably wouldn't exist. But how does that help him in the election. Like, most damning thing they could find is information that foreign powers were given dirt on Trump by the DNC to hand back to the intelligence community, but Bernie fans know the DNC at that point was basically just Hillary Clinton's tools, so really that would just be evidence of Hillary Clinton doing something bad. And we have plenty of that, we know in the same campaign they paid for Steele to make a dossier and then handed it to officials pretending it was organic foreign intelligence. But that's beside the point. If Trump's investigation into the 2016 election finds evidence that the investigation into him was started by really illegal methods, does that make a single solitary voter decide to vote for Trump? Do you think there is anyone out there going "man, I like Donald Trump, but that investigation into his campaign makes me nervous. I'll only vote for him if I find out it was a baseless investigation." I don't think that person exists. I think the investigation he's asking for doesn't help Trump's campaign. I think the assumption that it does is bunk.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Second whistleblower (with first hand knowledge) is now go [https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/06/politics/second-whistleblower-trump-ukraine/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F].

I, for one can't wait for the Olympian mental gymnastics from the faithful as to why they don't believe this one.

Then, the Simone Biles-level of floorwork when it all comes out to be just as damning as these whistleblowers say... how it STILL wouldn't warrant impeachment somehow in the faithful's minds.

I mean, if this second whistleblower knows something more incriminating than the phone call happened, maybe this is relevant. But the record of the call was released, I don't think another whistleblower telling us that it happened makes literally any difference at all.

I was given the impression that this new whistleblower doesn't have any new allegations, but is coming forward to counter the fact the original whistleblower only had second hand accounts of the alleged misdeeds, a fact that those generally on the side of Trump have been hammering on pretty heavily and apparently to some noticable effect if it compelled a second whistleblower to make a redundant complaint to give it some first hand witness credentials.

 

[tstorm823]

I was given the impression that this new whistleblower doesn't have any new allegations, but is coming forward to counter the fact the original whistleblower only had second hand accounts of the alleged misdeeds, a fact that those generally on the side of Trump have been hammering on pretty heavily and apparently to some noticable effect if it compelled a second whistleblower to make a redundant complaint to give it some first hand witness credentials.

I don't think there was ever much doubt as to the truth of the claims in the whistleblower report. When it first came out that there was a whistleblower, there was some skepticism. "Anonymous whistleblower with no first-hand knowledge incriminates President" deserves skepticism. But by the time the complaint was released, we basically already knew everything in it between the call transcript, publicly available news reports, and direct statements from people involved. The second whistleblower is being described as someone with first-hand knowledge who can confirm some of the allegations in the complaint. Well, Donald Trump is also someone with first-hand knowledge who can confirm some of the allegations in the complaint. They released a transcript that confirmed like half of them. We don't need a whistleblower to have first-hand verification that Trump talked about investigating Biden with Zelenskyy, we know that happened from both Presidents saying so and a record of the call.

The ongoing issue stemming from the original whistleblower not having first-hand knowledge is that prior to August, the whistleblowing procedures required first-hand knowledge. A policy revision, seemingly enacted in August, allowed for second-hand accounts to be filed as whistleblowing. So the timeline there is that between the July 25th phone call and August 12th when the report was filed, the report was written AND the policy was changed to allow the report to be filed. That may be one hell of a coincidence, and it's possible that they just happened to change things a week or two after the phone call. But the more likely explanation is that the whistleblower is either high enough up to enact that change or was working with someone who has that authority, and they made the change to let this report happen in the first place.

Now, even then, it could be that they viewed this call as seriously problematic, and felt it was genuinely worthwhile to take that rule off to bring this call to congress's attention. I'd still consider that acceptable behavior. But now we have a second whistleblower showing willingness to assert first-hand knowledge of the event. Why would they change the rules if they could just get a first-hand account on record? I suppose the second person may not have been known or willing at the time, but if you might follow me down the path to tin-foil hat village, I have another possible explanation. If your goal is to make the case look as bad for Trump as possible, there is an advantage to NOT having first-hand knowledge. If the facts being presented are coming from someone who wasn't witness to them, it excuses gaps in the information. They weren't there, they only know what others told them. For example, the ongoing debate between Agema and I depends on the question "who initiated the contact between Trump and Zelenskyy". The whistleblower complaint states "I do not know who initiated the call". Because they're a second-hand source, it isn't terribly suspicious that they are missing some of the background information. But it's worth noting that if they did know Ukraine initiated contact, it would hugely undermine the claim that Trump acted inappropriately. Gaps in knowledge can be used to make something seem more incriminating.

That's still not reason to doubt them. Just because something can be abused doesn't mean that it was. But now we know that the whistleblower consulted with Adam Schiff's committee before even filing the complaint, Adam Schiff lied about it publicly, and Pelosi started impeachment proceedings "before" seeing the complaint, and at this point no accusation of wrongdoing seems implausible. As of right now, with the evidence we have, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that they changed the whistleblowing rules specifically to allow for a complaint to be filed about hearsay so that they could selectively include information to frame the accusations in the most damning way possible. I'm not saying that series of events is proven fact in any way, just that certain people's behaviors might lead one to suspect it.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

The ongoing issue stemming from the original whistleblower not having first-hand knowledge is that prior to August, the whistleblowing procedures required first-hand knowledge. A policy revision, seemingly enacted in August, allowed for second-hand accounts to be filed as whistleblowing.

This is demonstrably false. There never was a requirement for firsthand knowledge. You're repeating misinformation propegated by right-wing media, specifically the Federalist.

Here's the official word from the ICIG refuting the Federalist report
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

Here are other sources refuting it and explaining what it's BS.

Twitter thread from an expert at the Cato Institute (*not exactly a bastion of the liberal agenda)
https://twitter.com/normative/status/1178730363755139083?s=20

Podcast version, if you prefer (it should be noted that Sanchez communicated with the Federalist and told them about why their report was wrong, and they still didn't change a word of it)
https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/what-not-required-whistleblowers

Washington Examiner article (*ditto)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-the-intelligence-community-did-not-eliminate-a-firsthand-knowledge-requirement-for-the-ukraine-whistleblower

Daily Beast article
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-shows-russian-trolls-how-its-done-with-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-smear

 

[Asita]

The ongoing issue stemming from the original whistleblower not having first-hand knowledge is that prior to August, the whistleblowing procedures required first-hand knowledge. A policy revision, seemingly enacted in August, allowed for second-hand accounts to be filed as whistleblowing. So the timeline there is that between the July 25th phone call and August 12th when the report was filed, the report was written AND the policy was changed to allow the report to be filed. That may be one hell of a coincidence, and it's possible that they just happened to change things a week or two after the phone call. But the more likely explanation is that the whistleblower is either high enough up to enact that change or was working with someone who has that authority, and they made the change to let this report happen in the first place.

That's actually patently false. That claim was initially made by the Federalist, which falsely presented the IG's guidelines for evaluating whether or not the Whistleblower complaint met the standards of "urgent concern" as if they were used to evaluate whether the whistleblower complaint itself was credible. It further used this misrepresentation to promote another false claim that whistleblower rules had changed. Through this, it finally implied that the whistleblower complaint wouldn't be seen as valid mere months beforehand, and therefore the complaint must by necessity be seen as suspect. So basically the Federalist's story had little to no basis in truth. Point of fact, on September 30, the office of the Inspector General actually felt obliged to release a statement to set the record straight. Per their release statement:

The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General [Michael] Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant - or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees - need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower?s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.

Furthermore, the statement directly addressed the question of the complaint itself.

[The] whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower's filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress's intent, and the whistleblower's intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.

 

[tstorm823]

snip

The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General [Michael] Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant ? or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees ? need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower?s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.

Furthermore, the statement directly addressed the question of the complaint itself.

[The] whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower?s filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress?s intent, and the whistleblower?s intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.

You should both read better:

In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read ? incorrectly ? as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

Like, I'm not trying to suggest the whistleblower complaint contains lies. I'm not trying to suggest it was submitted improperly. I'm trying to suggest that there was an effort to pave the way for it. The statement you're citing as evidence that "nu-uh, there was never that requirement" says pretty straight forwardly that the language certainly suggested there was that requirement, and they removed it on the revision because of people asking about this specific complaint.

And remember, the revision of those documents was done in August. The press didn't report on this until the 3rd week of September. But they were making inquiries about specifically whether this complaint would count without first-hand knowledge in August. My point overall was that there was a coordinated effort to make sure this complaint would stick, and you're trying to prove me wrong with a document illustrating that there was a coordinated effort to make the complaint stick. Whether or not the requirement of first-hand knowledge existed in statute, whether or not that requirement was legally allowed to exist, is immaterial. The point is that is was written into the forms for filing whistleblower complaints and was explicitly removed is response to this specific complaint.

I'll admit, I was unaware of that statement from the Inspector General, but it hasn't really changed anything.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

You should both read better:

In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read ? incorrectly ? as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

Like, I'm not trying to suggest the whistleblower complaint contains lies. I'm not trying to suggest it was submitted improperly. I'm trying to suggest that there was an effort to pave the way for it.

How exactly can you "pave the way" for the complaint when there was never a requirement to begin with, as the ICIG statement said?

The statement you're citing as evidence that "nu-uh, there was never that requirement" says pretty straight forwardly that the language certainly suggested there was that requirement, and they removed it on the revision because of people asking about this specific complaint.

You *literally* quoted a segement of the ICIG statement that said in no uncertain terms that such a reading of that language was incorrect. YOU HIGHLIGHTED THE PASSAGE (and then claimed that Asita and I need to "read better"). I'm not sure what you're arguing. You know that the Inspector General here, Michael Atkinson, was selected by Trump, right? So what's the argument here -- it's a coup?

I'll admit, I was unaware of that statement from the Inspector General, but it hasn't really changed anything.

Of course you believe that. You're invested in the Federalist report -- even though that report omits a key fact about the 2018 whistleblower form, i.e. it allowed submissions based on "other employees" telling the source about the event, or based on "other sources." See for yourself:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427767481/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18?campaign=VigLink&ad_group=xxc1xx&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate

 

[Asita]

You should both read better:

In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read - incorrectly - as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

Like, I'm not trying to suggest the whistleblower complaint contains lies. I'm not trying to suggest it was submitted improperly. I'm trying to suggest that there was an effort to pave the way for it. The statement you're citing as evidence that "nu-uh, there was never that requirement" says pretty straight forwardly that the language certainly suggested there was that requirement, and they removed it on the revision because of people asking about this specific complaint.

And remember, the revision of those documents was done in August. The press didn't report on this until the 3rd week of September. But they were making inquiries about specifically whether this complaint would count without first-hand knowledge in August. My point overall was that there was a coordinated effort to make sure this complaint would stick, and you're trying to prove me wrong with a document illustrating that there was a coordinated effort to make the complaint stick. Whether or not the requirement of first-hand knowledge existed in statute, whether or not that requirement was legally allowed to exist, is immaterial. The point is that is was written into the forms for filing whistleblower complaints and was explicitly removed is response to this specific complaint.

I'll admit, I was unaware of that statement from the Inspector General, but it hasn't really changed anything.

Apothecary, heal thyself. Let's look at the very excerpt you invoke, shall we?

In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read - incorrectly - as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

It's not a change in requirements (which would only be possible through an Act of Congress), it's a change in legibility. You want to know what the prior version looked like?

CIG ICWSP Form 401, May 24, 2018: In order to find an urgent concern "credible," the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

This refers to what gets escalated, not what's reportable.

And you want the part that makes this particular conspiracy theory laughable? The whistleblower used that prior format and indicated in that format that the information was based both on information obtained from others and direct experience. This is again referenced in the Sept 30 statement.

Office of the ICIG, Sept. 30: As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant?s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could "provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions," which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint "appeared credible," as required by statute. Therefore, although the Complainant's Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President's July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG's preliminary review supported the Complainant's allegations.

So basically the Federalist and the people echoing them are positing that the rules were changed to make this thing work...when the complaint already indicated that the information included the very things that the Federalist et al was saying the rules were changed to bypass the need for.

 

[Agema]

You should both read better:

In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read ? incorrectly ? as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

No, you should read better. There is a manifest difference between "could be read" and "read". The latter is definite, the former says that the wording is imprecise and open to misleading interpretation. In other words, there was never any requirement for first hand evidence even in the original document, just unclear wording.

No, it saves you the heartache of admitting an error.

You shouldn't crow before you know you're right, it just makes it more embarrassing when things go wrong. There you go:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

"Former Ukrainian member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst say Zelenskyy actually had declined Giuliani?s request for a meeting, which could explain Giuliani?s tone of rejection. Herbst commented, ?My understanding is that the president-elect?s party and his group said that the President-elect [Zelenskyy] sees no reason to have a meeting about an issue which is so transparently an American domestic political issue."

You only know about the documents because the press only got those. It was a closed door briefing, we don't know what was said.

Because it's so top secret to say Giuliani was officially working for the State Dept in Ukraine? Uh-huh.

I don't think this is even true. Elizabeth Warren is the preeminent Democratic nominee.

It's not about what you think, it's what Trump and team thought at the time they wanted Biden smeared.

But that's not the favor Trump is asking for. Trump is asking for an investigation into meddling in the 2016 election.

What you're doing here is attempting to argue that because there's a section of Zelenskyy speak in between Trump explicitly referencing a favour and asking for investigation into Burisma, then it creates this magical non-sequitur, as if that Zelenskyy reply has suddenly rebooted the conversation with all previous context and information now null and void.

But it's a clear continuation of topic with logical flow and all. Trump's personal lawyer has been in Ukraine for months and months openly saying he's digging for dirt on Biden with Trump's full support. State Dept. staff seem to think that's what Trump is looking for, and have briefed Zelenskyy accordingly before the call.

One way or another, Trump is definitely asking for an investigation into Biden, isn't he? And Trump and team are putting a lot of effort into getting Zelenskyy to agree.

He's having the Attorney General investigate the sources that provided the intelligence that lead to the FBI spying on Trump's campaign. Yes, that is absolutely something that Trump has a personal fixation on, and without him in office, that investigation probably wouldn't exist. But how does that help him in the election.

Because however you want to look at it, the findings of the Mueller report make Trump and his team look dodgy to a reasonable chunk of the US electorate. Like for instance the way Clinton (H.) couldn't shake the dirt of her dodgy email server.

 

[tstorm823]

So basically the Federalist and the people echoing them are positing that the rules were changed to make this thing work...when the complaint already indicated that the information included the very things that the Federalist et al was saying the rules were changed to bypass the need for.

You're going in circles. It doesn't matter whether or not the whistleblower was filing against the rules either before or after revision. It doesn't matter whether or not second-hand information should count. It doesn't matter if the whistleblower had first-hand accounts or not.

What matters is that there were people who knew of this report, knew the content of the report enough to know if it was first-hand or second-hand information, and got them to revise out conflicting language from the whistleblower procedures before bringing anything to the attention of the public. It doesn't carry as much weight now that we know Adam Schiff is utterly full of crap, but the significance of the change was that it evidenced that this was more than just a single person blowing the whistle, it was a coordinated effort with outside help. Saying "Ha! It was never against the rules! (but they did change the paperwork based on it)" doesn't contradict this.

You shouldn't crow before you know you're right, it just makes it more embarrassing when things go wrong. There you go:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

"Former Ukrainian member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst say Zelenskyy actually had declined Giuliani?s request for a meeting, which could explain Giuliani?s tone of rejection. Herbst commented, ?My understanding is that the president-elect?s party and his group said that the President-elect [Zelenskyy] sees no reason to have a meeting about an issue which is so transparently an American domestic political issue."

So, vague hearsay and a guy actively blaming Giuliani for ending his career. I can see why neither of those things were widely reported. That has no more credibility than Solomon reporting the words of the guy Biden got fired.

Because however you want to look at it, the findings of the Mueller report make Trump and his team look dodgy to a reasonable chunk of the US electorate. Like for instance the way Clinton (H.) couldn't shake the dirt of her dodgy email server.

Nah, that's not the case. Imma have to plead first hand knowledge of this, but the chunk of US electorate who think Trump looks dodgy based on the Mueller report are all and only the people who don't like him anyway. There's just nobody in the US electorate who ditched Trump over the Mueller Report. Nobody who would even consider voting for Trump thinks he colluded with Russia to win the election, and people who think he didn't collude with Russia don't think his behavior during the investigation is worse than the Democrats'. People have great capacity to forgive other's defensive actions when put under attack.

 

[Agema]

So, vague hearsay and a guy actively blaming Giuliani for ending his career. I can see why neither of those things were widely reported. That has no more credibility than Solomon reporting the words of the guy Biden got fired.

Doesn't really matter a shit, does it? The important point agreed on is the Giuliani cancelled his May meeting in a huff because Zelenskyy wouldn't speak to him. If all you want to do is bicker over a digression on the precise details of how he got snubbed, find someone else.

Nah, that's not the case. Imma have to plead first hand knowledge of this, but the chunk of US electorate who think Trump looks dodgy based on the Mueller report are all and only the people who don't like him anyway. There's just nobody in the US electorate who ditched Trump over the Mueller Report.

I'm impressed that you have first hand experience of over 200 million people. And you can guess for yourself what I really mean by "impressed".

The thing is, you don't need to shift that many people to win an election in a country where a 55-45 margin is a big win. 5% is a huge number. Even 1% - especially of the right people - is a lot.

 

[tstorm823]

Doesn't really matter a shit, does it? The important point agreed on is the Giuliani cancelled his May meeting in a huff because Zelenskyy wouldn't speak to him. If all you want to do is bicker over a digression on the precise details of how he got snubbed, find someone else.

I'm not just accepting your premise that he got snubbed. The vast majority of reporting on the event doesn't include Zelenskyy cancelling, but rather includes the messaging that's consistent across all sources: that Zelenskyy was being advised not to get involved in US politics. Ask yourself this: if Zelenskyy was being strongly advised not to meet with Giuliani, and they had scheduled the meeting anyway, who on the Ukrainian side wanted to have that meeting with Giuliani? The answer is Zelenskyy. Because if Zelenskyy wasn't interested and his advisors were against it, it never have happened.

I can hear your response already: "Trump obviously forced him to." If Trump was making that meeting happen and using the power of the US government to force it, Zelenskyy can't snub it. He can't snub the meeting if the US is strong-arming him into it.

The only thing that makes sense is that Zelenskyy wanted the meeting. You just want to believe whatever narrative makes Giuliani look stupid and petty.

 

[Asita]

So basically the Federalist and the people echoing them are positing that the rules were changed to make this thing work...when the complaint already indicated that the information included the very things that the Federalist et al was saying the rules were changed to bypass the need for.

You're going in circles. It doesn't matter whether or not the whistleblower was filing against the rules either before or after revision. It doesn't matter whether or not second-hand information should count. It doesn't matter if the whistleblower had first-hand accounts or not.

What matters is that there were people who knew of this report, knew the content of the report enough to know if it was first-hand or second-hand information, and got them to revise out conflicting language from the whistleblower procedures before bringing anything to the attention of the public. It doesn't carry as much weight now that we know Adam Schiff is utterly full of crap, but the significance of the change was that it evidenced that this was more than just a single person blowing the whistle, it was a coordinated effort with outside help. Saying "Ha! It was never against the rules! (but they did change the paperwork based on it)" doesn't contradict this.

Except none of that is actually true. The assumption that the wording was changed for the sake of this specific report is not evidenced and is by all indications pure speculation working backwards from the erroneous conclusion that the whistleblower report would not have been in line with previous policy and the language was changed purely for the sake of strengthening its accusations. It's a baseless assumption.

I've said before and I'll say it again, you are not remotely as impartial as you believe yourself to be regarding Trump.

 

[tstorm823]

Except none of that is actually true. The assumption that the wording was changed for the sake of this specific report is not evidenced and is by all indications pure speculation working backwards from the erroneous conclusion that the whistleblower report would not have been in line with previous policy and the language was changed purely for the sake of strengthening its accusations. It's a baseless assumption.

I've said before and I'll say it again, you are not remotely as impartial as you believe yourself to be regarding Trump.

In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read - incorrectly - as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

The wording was changed because of this whistleblower complaint. That's what that says. If the previous policy was written incorrectly and truly needed to be updated, so be it. But it was done because this specific complaint appeared to violate policy.

 

[Asita]

Except none of that is actually true. The assumption that the wording was changed for the sake of this specific report is not evidenced and is by all indications pure speculation working backwards from the erroneous conclusion that the whistleblower report would not have been in line with previous policy and the language was changed purely for the sake of strengthening its accusations. It's a baseless assumption.

I've said before and I'll say it again, you are not remotely as impartial as you believe yourself to be regarding Trump.

In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read - incorrectly - as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

The wording was changed because of this whistleblower complaint. That's what that says. If the previous policy was written incorrectly and truly needed to be updated, so be it. But it was done because this specific complaint appeared to violate policy.

No, it didn't. See, this is what I'm talking about. You're champing at the bit to find some reason, any reason to cast doubt on the whistleblower complaint, to the point of making downright absurd leaps of logic. You are literally positing here that the wording was changed before the report was submitted in response to press inquiries that could not have been made until after the report was made public. You're championing a bit of spin that the change was made because under the prior wording the claim would "appear to violate policy", when the complaint indicated that it had both secondhand and firsthand information, the lack of which is very thing that the sources you're echoing are saying would have made it "appear to violate policy". In fact, let's go a step further, shall we?

The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, "I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved"; and the second box stated that, "Other employees have told me about events or records involved." As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant?s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant?s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could "provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions," which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint "appeared credible," as required by statute. Therefore, although the Complainant's Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President?s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG?s preliminary review supported the Complainant?s allegations.

So let's review. The rules did not change. The whistleblower claimed firsthand knowledge anyway, so even if the rules had changed as erroneously suggested it would still have met the standards from before that hypothetical change, and the IG found additional information supporting the allegations of the whistleblower complaint.

 

[tstorm823]

So let's review. The rules did not change. The whistleblower claimed firsthand knowledge anyway, so even if the rules had changed as erroneously suggested it would still have met the standards from before that hypothetical change, and the IG found additional information supporting the allegations of the whistleblower complaint.

Let's make this simple: I agree with all of this. To my knowledge, everything you say in here is correct.

Now acknowledge that the wording was changed in response to this complaint or you're just being irritating.

To be clear: I don't now nor ever have believed the complaint was made in violation of any rules, nor do I now or ever believe the complaint contains any deliberate untruths, or many untruths at all. That does not mean that there weren't multiple people working before the complaint was released to try and make sure this accusation of misconduct would stick to Trump.

 

[Asita]

Now acknowledge that the wording was changed in response to this complaint or you're just being irritating.

I invite you to reread the first paragraph in that post again, about how this particular bit of spin is based on downright absurd leaps of logic. "You are literally positing here that the wording was changed before the report was submitted in response to press inquiries that could not have been made until after the report was made public. You're championing a bit of spin that the change was made because under the prior wording the claim would 'appear to violate policy', when the complaint indicated that it had both secondhand and firsthand information, the lack of which is very thing that the sources you're echoing are saying would have made it 'appear to violate policy'."

It's a nonsensical conspiracy theory which posits that the wording was changed to make the complaint more viable by masking its lack of a trait it actually had, and what's more that the decision was made as a response to questions received after the decision was made. It's...downright delusional in how it's scrambling to find any fault against the whistleblower complaint