BREAKING: The "whistleblower"'s Attorney has ties to <<drum roll>>Hillary

[boedicca]

The facts presented by the whistle blower have been proven to be accurate. Trying to discredit the accusation by claiming some ties with Hillary is just dumb. Any ties are immaterial as long as the facts remain accurate.

The facts?

Shirley, you jest.

Goodwin: Donald Trump now has to battle CIA spies in Dems’ war against him

"Trump could be accused of understatement in describing anyone who participated with the so-called whistleblower as “almost a spy.”

There is nothing “almost” about it. The trained CIA officer used his trusted position in the White House to gather secret information from what he claims were “multiple US government officials.”

He retained Democratically connected lawyers and injected his allegations into the political bloodstream with one intent: to get Trump removed from office.

Among the hints the officer and his lawyers worked with Dems to shape his complaint are the early leaks to the hysterical anti-Trump media. The goal was to whet appetites and do the most damage despite the agent having no firsthand knowledge of events he described. Mission accomplished.

CIA agents are supposed to spy on foreign adversaries. This one spied on the president, then cloaked himself in whistleblower camouflage. His sources are presumably still at work and perhaps planning another run at the president."

Donald Trump committed a crime and got caught - red handed. As a result, he blames the Democrats for catching him. Trump has confessed to committing the crime on national television, but everything about this is all the fault of the Democrats.

If you believe that this is all the fault of the Democrats and not the fault of Donald Trump for breaking the law, I have a ski resort in Miami I'd like to sell you.

So...you want Trump punished for the crimes Democrats committed.

I should probably update my sig to:

Liberalism is the belief everyone else should be in treatment for your disorder and punished for your crimes.

What you put in your sig line is your call, but you should definitely do something about getting your meds updated.

Oh blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzzzzz.

Clearly, you are sorely deficient in your favorite activity.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't think they have received the Crazy Rudy seal of approval yet, but everybody else has determined it's true. Trump even said on TV it was all true.

Really? Trump said "I withheld military aid to Ukraine until they agreed to interfere in the 2020 election"?

Because that's what you're claiming he said.

Make up your mind. Are we talking about the whistle blowers claims that have already been determined to be credible, or my claims that are easily proven?
One thing at a time there sweet lips.

1. You never did answer my question about what made the whistleblower's claims credible. If you wanna give that a shot, bear in mind the caveat I posted with the question.

2. Just saying your claims are easily proven is not actual proof.

You obviously would disagree with any reason I might think the claims are credible, so I won't bother with that. However, you don't need to take my word for it. The Inspector General made the determination that the complaint is not only “credible,” but an “urgent concern.”. If you doubt him, then that's your problem.

Did the IGIC mention the whistleblower colluded with Schiff and broke the law?

Liberals just can't help but break the law. That's because the only thing important to them is their agenda. If the law's in the way...screw it.

The Useful Idiots will excuse it anyway. You always do.

Exactly which law would that be? Just because you wish it was against the law doesn't make it so, but please quote the law you think has anything to do with that.

 

[daveman]

Really? Trump said "I withheld military aid to Ukraine until they agreed to interfere in the 2020 election"?

Because that's what you're claiming he said.

Make up your mind. Are we talking about the whistle blowers claims that have already been determined to be credible, or my claims that are easily proven?
One thing at a time there sweet lips.

1. You never did answer my question about what made the whistleblower's claims credible. If you wanna give that a shot, bear in mind the caveat I posted with the question.

2. Just saying your claims are easily proven is not actual proof.

You obviously would disagree with any reason I might think the claims are credible, so I won't bother with that. However, you don't need to take my word for it. The Inspector General made the determination that the complaint is not only “credible,” but an “urgent concern.”. If you doubt him, then that's your problem.

Did the IGIC mention the whistleblower colluded with Schiff and broke the law?

Liberals just can't help but break the law. That's because the only thing important to them is their agenda. If the law's in the way...screw it.

The Useful Idiots will excuse it anyway. You always do.

Exactly which law would that be? Just because you wish it was against the law doesn't make it so, but please quote the law you think has anything to do with that.

Wishing things were against the law and then prosecuting them is strictly a leftist thing.

BREAKING: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Colluded With House Democrats Before Filing Complaint

Under federal law, whistleblowers within the intelligence community are required to report any allegations of wrongdoing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in order to receive statutory whistleblower protections for their disclosures. The law does not provide any protections to employees or contractors who bypass the process required by law and go directly to Congress, nor does it provide any avenue to disclose classified information to Congress without first going through the ICIG. If the complainant or a colleague leaked classified information to Schiff or his committee, those individuals could be subject to criminal liability for illegal and unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

“The employee may contact the intelligence committees directly [after filing a complaint with the inspector general] if the employee…before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the intelligence committees directly…and obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices,” the federal whistleblower law, known as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, states.
​

Ooops. As far as your claim the ICIG determined the complaint was credible, he couldn't have. All he had was third-hand knowledge of something that didn't even happen.

Top lawmakers in both the Senate and House sent letters to the ICIG earlier this week demanding to know precisely when the first-hand information required was discarded. Under the whistleblower law, the ICIG has near-total authority to determine how whistleblower evidence is weighed and ultimately whether complaints are considered credible.

The ICIG admitted in a September 13 letter to Congress that he never reviewed the transcript of the July 25 call before determining that the anti-Trump complaint “appear[ed] credible.”


“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” ICIG Michael Atkinson wrote.

Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient and did not qualify under the law as an “urgent concern” that needed to be provided to the relevant congressional oversight committees.
​

The whistleblower was not honest with the ICIG.

The intelligence community whistleblower who alleged misconduct at the White House over President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president did not disclose contact with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff to the intelligence committee inspector general (ICIG), sources told Fox News Friday.

The sources said ICIG Michael Atkinson told lawmakers in a closed session that the whistleblower did not disclose the contact with the California Democrat's committee and that Atkinson didn’t investigate that contact as he had no knowledge of it.

On Friday, sources also told Fox News that Atkinson also revealed that the whistleblower volunteered he or she was a registered Democrat and that they had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician.​

Liberals sure do pick shitty heroes.

 

[BULLDOG]

Make up your mind. Are we talking about the whistle blowers claims that have already been determined to be credible, or my claims that are easily proven?
One thing at a time there sweet lips.

1. You never did answer my question about what made the whistleblower's claims credible. If you wanna give that a shot, bear in mind the caveat I posted with the question.

2. Just saying your claims are easily proven is not actual proof.

You obviously would disagree with any reason I might think the claims are credible, so I won't bother with that. However, you don't need to take my word for it. The Inspector General made the determination that the complaint is not only “credible,” but an “urgent concern.”. If you doubt him, then that's your problem.

Did the IGIC mention the whistleblower colluded with Schiff and broke the law?

Liberals just can't help but break the law. That's because the only thing important to them is their agenda. If the law's in the way...screw it.

The Useful Idiots will excuse it anyway. You always do.

Exactly which law would that be? Just because you wish it was against the law doesn't make it so, but please quote the law you think has anything to do with that.

Wishing things were against the law and then prosecuting them is strictly a leftist thing.

BREAKING: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Colluded With House Democrats Before Filing Complaint

Under federal law, whistleblowers within the intelligence community are required to report any allegations of wrongdoing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in order to receive statutory whistleblower protections for their disclosures. The law does not provide any protections to employees or contractors who bypass the process required by law and go directly to Congress, nor does it provide any avenue to disclose classified information to Congress without first going through the ICIG. If the complainant or a colleague leaked classified information to Schiff or his committee, those individuals could be subject to criminal liability for illegal and unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

“The employee may contact the intelligence committees directly [after filing a complaint with the inspector general] if the employee…before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the intelligence committees directly…and obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices,” the federal whistleblower law, known as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, states.
​

Ooops. As far as your claim the ICIG determined the complaint was credible, he couldn't have. All he had was third-hand knowledge of something that didn't even happen.

Top lawmakers in both the Senate and House sent letters to the ICIG earlier this week demanding to know precisely when the first-hand information required was discarded. Under the whistleblower law, the ICIG has near-total authority to determine how whistleblower evidence is weighed and ultimately whether complaints are considered credible.

The ICIG admitted in a September 13 letter to Congress that he never reviewed the transcript of the July 25 call before determining that the anti-Trump complaint “appear[ed] credible.”


“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” ICIG Michael Atkinson wrote.

Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient and did not qualify under the law as an “urgent concern” that needed to be provided to the relevant congressional oversight committees.
​

The whistleblower was not honest with the ICIG.

The intelligence community whistleblower who alleged misconduct at the White House over President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president did not disclose contact with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff to the intelligence committee inspector general (ICIG), sources told Fox News Friday.

The sources said ICIG Michael Atkinson told lawmakers in a closed session that the whistleblower did not disclose the contact with the California Democrat's committee and that Atkinson didn’t investigate that contact as he had no knowledge of it.

On Friday, sources also told Fox News that Atkinson also revealed that the whistleblower volunteered he or she was a registered Democrat and that they had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician.​

Liberals sure do pick shitty heroes.

tl;dr

 

[daveman]

1. You never did answer my question about what made the whistleblower's claims credible. If you wanna give that a shot, bear in mind the caveat I posted with the question.

2. Just saying your claims are easily proven is not actual proof.

You obviously would disagree with any reason I might think the claims are credible, so I won't bother with that. However, you don't need to take my word for it. The Inspector General made the determination that the complaint is not only “credible,” but an “urgent concern.”. If you doubt him, then that's your problem.

Did the IGIC mention the whistleblower colluded with Schiff and broke the law?

Liberals just can't help but break the law. That's because the only thing important to them is their agenda. If the law's in the way...screw it.

The Useful Idiots will excuse it anyway. You always do.

Exactly which law would that be? Just because you wish it was against the law doesn't make it so, but please quote the law you think has anything to do with that.

Wishing things were against the law and then prosecuting them is strictly a leftist thing.

BREAKING: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Colluded With House Democrats Before Filing Complaint

Under federal law, whistleblowers within the intelligence community are required to report any allegations of wrongdoing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in order to receive statutory whistleblower protections for their disclosures. The law does not provide any protections to employees or contractors who bypass the process required by law and go directly to Congress, nor does it provide any avenue to disclose classified information to Congress without first going through the ICIG. If the complainant or a colleague leaked classified information to Schiff or his committee, those individuals could be subject to criminal liability for illegal and unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

“The employee may contact the intelligence committees directly [after filing a complaint with the inspector general] if the employee…before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the intelligence committees directly…and obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices,” the federal whistleblower law, known as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, states.
​

Ooops. As far as your claim the ICIG determined the complaint was credible, he couldn't have. All he had was third-hand knowledge of something that didn't even happen.

Top lawmakers in both the Senate and House sent letters to the ICIG earlier this week demanding to know precisely when the first-hand information required was discarded. Under the whistleblower law, the ICIG has near-total authority to determine how whistleblower evidence is weighed and ultimately whether complaints are considered credible.

The ICIG admitted in a September 13 letter to Congress that he never reviewed the transcript of the July 25 call before determining that the anti-Trump complaint “appear[ed] credible.”


“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” ICIG Michael Atkinson wrote.

Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient and did not qualify under the law as an “urgent concern” that needed to be provided to the relevant congressional oversight committees.
​

The whistleblower was not honest with the ICIG.

The intelligence community whistleblower who alleged misconduct at the White House over President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president did not disclose contact with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff to the intelligence committee inspector general (ICIG), sources told Fox News Friday.

The sources said ICIG Michael Atkinson told lawmakers in a closed session that the whistleblower did not disclose the contact with the California Democrat's committee and that Atkinson didn’t investigate that contact as he had no knowledge of it.

On Friday, sources also told Fox News that Atkinson also revealed that the whistleblower volunteered he or she was a registered Democrat and that they had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician.​

Liberals sure do pick shitty heroes.

tl;dr

Of course you didn't. You're a chickenshit.

 

[BULLDOG]

You obviously would disagree with any reason I might think the claims are credible, so I won't bother with that. However, you don't need to take my word for it. The Inspector General made the determination that the complaint is not only “credible,” but an “urgent concern.”. If you doubt him, then that's your problem.

Did the IGIC mention the whistleblower colluded with Schiff and broke the law?

Liberals just can't help but break the law. That's because the only thing important to them is their agenda. If the law's in the way...screw it.

The Useful Idiots will excuse it anyway. You always do.

Exactly which law would that be? Just because you wish it was against the law doesn't make it so, but please quote the law you think has anything to do with that.

Wishing things were against the law and then prosecuting them is strictly a leftist thing.

BREAKING: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Colluded With House Democrats Before Filing Complaint

Under federal law, whistleblowers within the intelligence community are required to report any allegations of wrongdoing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in order to receive statutory whistleblower protections for their disclosures. The law does not provide any protections to employees or contractors who bypass the process required by law and go directly to Congress, nor does it provide any avenue to disclose classified information to Congress without first going through the ICIG. If the complainant or a colleague leaked classified information to Schiff or his committee, those individuals could be subject to criminal liability for illegal and unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

“The employee may contact the intelligence committees directly [after filing a complaint with the inspector general] if the employee…before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the intelligence committees directly…and obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices,” the federal whistleblower law, known as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, states.
​

Ooops. As far as your claim the ICIG determined the complaint was credible, he couldn't have. All he had was third-hand knowledge of something that didn't even happen.

Top lawmakers in both the Senate and House sent letters to the ICIG earlier this week demanding to know precisely when the first-hand information required was discarded. Under the whistleblower law, the ICIG has near-total authority to determine how whistleblower evidence is weighed and ultimately whether complaints are considered credible.

The ICIG admitted in a September 13 letter to Congress that he never reviewed the transcript of the July 25 call before determining that the anti-Trump complaint “appear[ed] credible.”


“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” ICIG Michael Atkinson wrote.

Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient and did not qualify under the law as an “urgent concern” that needed to be provided to the relevant congressional oversight committees.
​

The whistleblower was not honest with the ICIG.

The intelligence community whistleblower who alleged misconduct at the White House over President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president did not disclose contact with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff to the intelligence committee inspector general (ICIG), sources told Fox News Friday.

The sources said ICIG Michael Atkinson told lawmakers in a closed session that the whistleblower did not disclose the contact with the California Democrat's committee and that Atkinson didn’t investigate that contact as he had no knowledge of it.

On Friday, sources also told Fox News that Atkinson also revealed that the whistleblower volunteered he or she was a registered Democrat and that they had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician.​

Liberals sure do pick shitty heroes.

tl;dr

Of course you didn't. You're a chickenshit.

Sorry. I've had business to deal with off and on today. I'll try to getting around to reading your drivel a little later.

 

[daveman]

Did the IGIC mention the whistleblower colluded with Schiff and broke the law?

Liberals just can't help but break the law. That's because the only thing important to them is their agenda. If the law's in the way...screw it.

The Useful Idiots will excuse it anyway. You always do.

Exactly which law would that be? Just because you wish it was against the law doesn't make it so, but please quote the law you think has anything to do with that.

Wishing things were against the law and then prosecuting them is strictly a leftist thing.

BREAKING: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Colluded With House Democrats Before Filing Complaint

Under federal law, whistleblowers within the intelligence community are required to report any allegations of wrongdoing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in order to receive statutory whistleblower protections for their disclosures. The law does not provide any protections to employees or contractors who bypass the process required by law and go directly to Congress, nor does it provide any avenue to disclose classified information to Congress without first going through the ICIG. If the complainant or a colleague leaked classified information to Schiff or his committee, those individuals could be subject to criminal liability for illegal and unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

“The employee may contact the intelligence committees directly [after filing a complaint with the inspector general] if the employee…before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the intelligence committees directly…and obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices,” the federal whistleblower law, known as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, states.
​

Ooops. As far as your claim the ICIG determined the complaint was credible, he couldn't have. All he had was third-hand knowledge of something that didn't even happen.

Top lawmakers in both the Senate and House sent letters to the ICIG earlier this week demanding to know precisely when the first-hand information required was discarded. Under the whistleblower law, the ICIG has near-total authority to determine how whistleblower evidence is weighed and ultimately whether complaints are considered credible.

The ICIG admitted in a September 13 letter to Congress that he never reviewed the transcript of the July 25 call before determining that the anti-Trump complaint “appear[ed] credible.”


“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” ICIG Michael Atkinson wrote.

Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient and did not qualify under the law as an “urgent concern” that needed to be provided to the relevant congressional oversight committees.
​

The whistleblower was not honest with the ICIG.

The intelligence community whistleblower who alleged misconduct at the White House over President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president did not disclose contact with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff to the intelligence committee inspector general (ICIG), sources told Fox News Friday.

The sources said ICIG Michael Atkinson told lawmakers in a closed session that the whistleblower did not disclose the contact with the California Democrat's committee and that Atkinson didn’t investigate that contact as he had no knowledge of it.

On Friday, sources also told Fox News that Atkinson also revealed that the whistleblower volunteered he or she was a registered Democrat and that they had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician.​

Liberals sure do pick shitty heroes.

tl;dr

Of course you didn't. You're a chickenshit.

Sorry. I've had business to deal with off and on today. I'll try to getting around to reading your drivel a little later.

No, you won't.

 

[BULLDOG]

Exactly which law would that be? Just because you wish it was against the law doesn't make it so, but please quote the law you think has anything to do with that.

Wishing things were against the law and then prosecuting them is strictly a leftist thing.

BREAKING: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Colluded With House Democrats Before Filing Complaint

Under federal law, whistleblowers within the intelligence community are required to report any allegations of wrongdoing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in order to receive statutory whistleblower protections for their disclosures. The law does not provide any protections to employees or contractors who bypass the process required by law and go directly to Congress, nor does it provide any avenue to disclose classified information to Congress without first going through the ICIG. If the complainant or a colleague leaked classified information to Schiff or his committee, those individuals could be subject to criminal liability for illegal and unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

“The employee may contact the intelligence committees directly [after filing a complaint with the inspector general] if the employee…before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the intelligence committees directly…and obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices,” the federal whistleblower law, known as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, states.
​

Ooops. As far as your claim the ICIG determined the complaint was credible, he couldn't have. All he had was third-hand knowledge of something that didn't even happen.

Top lawmakers in both the Senate and House sent letters to the ICIG earlier this week demanding to know precisely when the first-hand information required was discarded. Under the whistleblower law, the ICIG has near-total authority to determine how whistleblower evidence is weighed and ultimately whether complaints are considered credible.

The ICIG admitted in a September 13 letter to Congress that he never reviewed the transcript of the July 25 call before determining that the anti-Trump complaint “appear[ed] credible.”


“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” ICIG Michael Atkinson wrote.

Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient and did not qualify under the law as an “urgent concern” that needed to be provided to the relevant congressional oversight committees.
​

The whistleblower was not honest with the ICIG.

The intelligence community whistleblower who alleged misconduct at the White House over President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president did not disclose contact with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff to the intelligence committee inspector general (ICIG), sources told Fox News Friday.

The sources said ICIG Michael Atkinson told lawmakers in a closed session that the whistleblower did not disclose the contact with the California Democrat's committee and that Atkinson didn’t investigate that contact as he had no knowledge of it.

On Friday, sources also told Fox News that Atkinson also revealed that the whistleblower volunteered he or she was a registered Democrat and that they had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician.​

Liberals sure do pick shitty heroes.

tl;dr

Of course you didn't. You're a chickenshit.

Sorry. I've had business to deal with off and on today. I'll try to getting around to reading your drivel a little later.

No, you won't.

You're probably right.

 

[daveman]

Wishing things were against the law and then prosecuting them is strictly a leftist thing.

BREAKING: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Colluded With House Democrats Before Filing Complaint

Under federal law, whistleblowers within the intelligence community are required to report any allegations of wrongdoing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in order to receive statutory whistleblower protections for their disclosures. The law does not provide any protections to employees or contractors who bypass the process required by law and go directly to Congress, nor does it provide any avenue to disclose classified information to Congress without first going through the ICIG. If the complainant or a colleague leaked classified information to Schiff or his committee, those individuals could be subject to criminal liability for illegal and unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

“The employee may contact the intelligence committees directly [after filing a complaint with the inspector general] if the employee…before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the intelligence committees directly…and obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices,” the federal whistleblower law, known as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, states.
​

Ooops. As far as your claim the ICIG determined the complaint was credible, he couldn't have. All he had was third-hand knowledge of something that didn't even happen.

Top lawmakers in both the Senate and House sent letters to the ICIG earlier this week demanding to know precisely when the first-hand information required was discarded. Under the whistleblower law, the ICIG has near-total authority to determine how whistleblower evidence is weighed and ultimately whether complaints are considered credible.

The ICIG admitted in a September 13 letter to Congress that he never reviewed the transcript of the July 25 call before determining that the anti-Trump complaint “appear[ed] credible.”


“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” ICIG Michael Atkinson wrote.

Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient and did not qualify under the law as an “urgent concern” that needed to be provided to the relevant congressional oversight committees.
​

The whistleblower was not honest with the ICIG.

The intelligence community whistleblower who alleged misconduct at the White House over President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president did not disclose contact with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff to the intelligence committee inspector general (ICIG), sources told Fox News Friday.

The sources said ICIG Michael Atkinson told lawmakers in a closed session that the whistleblower did not disclose the contact with the California Democrat's committee and that Atkinson didn’t investigate that contact as he had no knowledge of it.

On Friday, sources also told Fox News that Atkinson also revealed that the whistleblower volunteered he or she was a registered Democrat and that they had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician.​

Liberals sure do pick shitty heroes.

tl;dr

Of course you didn't. You're a chickenshit.

Sorry. I've had business to deal with off and on today. I'll try to getting around to reading your drivel a little later.

No, you won't.

You're probably right.

Undoubtedly. You'd think you might ask yourself why. But you won't do that, either.

 

[Lesh]

OMG! An attorney in WASHINGTON has "ties" to a former Sec of State.

Imagine that.

Whoever that person is has already had their effect. He forced the WH to release the damning phone call memo. And that memo vindicated the WB

All you can do now is try to punish him ( I guess to discourage other whistle blowers)

And that's what this all is. Character assassination