Quid Pro Quo took place for sure, now what?

[Munchmasterman]

Once again, you are lying out your ass.

There was only one complaint submitted and it's "urgent" status was not denied. On that complaint, the author checked the box that said he had first-hand knowledge and checked the box that said he had second-hand knowledge.
You have tried to use these well-proven lies numerous times and they have been debunked numerous times.
Typical trumpy. You use the "repeat a lie enough times....." method because it keeps the uneducated base in line.

"President Donald Trump and some of his defenders have advanced a bogus theory that whistleblower rules were changed to allow a complaint alleging misconduct by the president to be forwarded to Congress based only on secondhand information.

There was no such change in law or policy, according to a Sept. 30 statement issued by the independent Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

“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,” the three-page statement said.

The ICIG statement also said that the whistleblower had “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct” and that “other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations.”

He wasn’t the only one to claim a change had been made.

“I want to know why they changed the rules about whistleblowers,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sept. 29. “The hearsay rule was changed just a short period of time before the complaint was filed.”

And on CNN’s “State of the Union” the same day, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan said the unnamed whistleblower “had no firsthand knowledge” and had only “heard something from someone who may have heard something from someone.” That prompted a real-time fact-check from Jake Tapper, the show’s host.

“You know as well as I do that you do not need to have firsthand knowledge to be a whistleblower,” Tapper told Jordan.

“Well, you don’t now because they changed the form,” Jordan retorted. “You used to. They changed the form.”

“There’s no evidence of that,” Tapper shot back. “Experts say it has never been true that you need to have firsthand knowledge to be a whistleblower.”

Jordan’s office told us the congressman was referring to a change that was made to the May 24, 2018, version of ICWSP Form 401, which intelligence community whistleblowers previously used to submit complaints of potential wrongdoing.

The Federalist, a conservative online magazine, wrote about the form in a Sept. 27 story.

“Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,” the Federalist claimed. Trump shared the story on Twitter over the weekend.

The disclosure form was modified in August, but that did not change the rules for submitting complaints. Instead, in its Sept. 30 statement, the office of the ICIG said that particular form and a few others had been under review since earlier this year and were recently modified to clarify language that could have been misinterpreted by would-be whistleblowers.

“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 statement said.

“Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern.”

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 defines an “urgent concern” as, among other things, “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law of Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information.”

The old form included two pages of background information on the ICWPA submission process. The section titled “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED” said:

ICIG 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.

That language does not appear along with the new version of the form dated August 2019, but it never meant that whistleblowers couldn’t file a complaint based on hearsay, or secondhand information, in the first place.

“It’s clear the language at issue is about what gets escalated, not what’s reportable,” tweeted Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Sanchez, whose studies focus on national security and intelligence surveillance. “What the form they’re citing” says is “‘this won’t go up the chain without something more,’ which the IG did indeed get in this case,” he explained in another tweet on the subject.

In fact, the old form gave filers the following options to indicate how they obtained the information that was being disclosed: “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; “Other employees have told me about events or records involved”; or “Other source(s) (please explain).”

“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,” the ICIG’s statement said. “The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law.”

The statement went on to add that since Michael Atkinson started as inspector general on May 29, 2018, “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 ICIG statement said that the whistleblower who filed the Aug. 12 complaint against Trump used the old form — not the new one — and checked the boxes indicating that the claims were based on both direct knowledge of events and information obtained from others. (The new form still asks similar questions.)

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, not only was there no rule change for complaints based on hearsay, but those details from the ICIG also refute claims that the whistleblower “had no firsthand knowledge,” as Jordan, the Ohio congressman, claimed in his interview with CNN’s Tapper.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/no...histleblowers/

Your take on the funds is as misinformed as your whistleblower falsehoods. You claim some funds were released before the July 25th call.

Once again you are lying.
No funds were released before Sept 11th. Anti-corruption steps had mage progress and were certified so the funds could be released in June.


"Congress approved the $250 million in military aid and an additional $141 million in assistance from the State Department last fall with bipartisan support.

At the end of February, the Pentagon told defense and foreign affairs committees on Capitol Hill that it was coordinating with the State Department to transfer $125 million in aid and equipment to Ukraine. Then, in May, the Pentagon notified the panels it would send the other $125 million, certifying that Ukraine had made progress on corruption, as lawmakers had required when they approved the funds.

That certification, two months before the president’s call with Zelensky, undermines one explanation Trump and his allies have offered for holding up the money — that it was because of broader concerns about corruption."

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...ss-impeachment

All of your very convenient (for your bullshit narrative) lies put you in a bad spot. Now you need a new story.
Tough to keep up with your lies.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

"they"? uh No. the initial report was rejected as an urgent concern because the rules stated that only first hand knowledge is considered urgent. and only urgent complaints are sent to Congress. to the very committee Schiff chairs. interesting isn't that? the ICIG then changed the rules to allow a second hand complaint to be considered urgent. the ICIG initially claimed the rules were changed in 2018. then admitted that was not true, they were changed specifically to allow the whistleblower's complaint to be considered urgent.


Schiff via his staff has also admitted they had contact with the whistleblower before his first complaint was filed, which was rejected as urgent. see above. there is nothing miraculous about the funds being released. apparently some funds had already been released and the rest after Trump had spoken to the incoming Ukraine president. you know .. the incoming president that ran on a anti-corruption platform. there is nothing wrong or illegal about Trump holding up military aid until he spoke with the incoming president to discuss how those funds would be used by the incoming president. notice i keep emphasizing incoming .. the Democrats "might" have a case if the president had an established record dealing with Trump and the US. Trump as president sets foreign policy not the NSC or Congress. and there is that treaty we have with Ukraine .. about cooperating on criminal matters .. including corruption.


all these inconvenient facts. do try to keep up, yeah?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Once again, you are lying out your ass.

There was only one complaint submitted and it's "urgent" status was not denied. On that complaint, the author checked the box that said he had first-hand knowledge and checked the box that said he had second-hand knowledge.
You have tried to use these well-proven lies numerous times and they have been debunked numerous times.
Typical trumpy. You use the "repeat a lie enough times....." method because it keeps the uneducated base in line.

"President Donald Trump and some of his defenders have advanced a bogus theory that whistleblower rules were changed to allow a complaint alleging misconduct by the president to be forwarded to Congress based only on secondhand information.

There was no such change in law or policy, according to a Sept. 30 statement issued by the independent Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

“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,” the three-page statement said.

The ICIG statement also said that the whistleblower had “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct” and that “other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations.”

He wasn’t the only one to claim a change had been made.

“I want to know why they changed the rules about whistleblowers,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sept. 29. “The hearsay rule was changed just a short period of time before the complaint was filed.”

And on CNN’s “State of the Union” the same day, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan said the unnamed whistleblower “had no firsthand knowledge” and had only “heard something from someone who may have heard something from someone.” That prompted a real-time fact-check from Jake Tapper, the show’s host.

“You know as well as I do that you do not need to have firsthand knowledge to be a whistleblower,” Tapper told Jordan.

“Well, you don’t now because they changed the form,” Jordan retorted. “You used to. They changed the form.”

“There’s no evidence of that,” Tapper shot back. “Experts say it has never been true that you need to have firsthand knowledge to be a whistleblower.”

Jordan’s office told us the congressman was referring to a change that was made to the May 24, 2018, version of ICWSP Form 401, which intelligence community whistleblowers previously used to submit complaints of potential wrongdoing.

The Federalist, a conservative online magazine, wrote about the form in a Sept. 27 story.

“Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,” the Federalist claimed. Trump shared the story on Twitter over the weekend.

The disclosure form was modified in August, but that did not change the rules for submitting complaints. Instead, in its Sept. 30 statement, the office of the ICIG said that particular form and a few others had been under review since earlier this year and were recently modified to clarify language that could have been misinterpreted by would-be whistleblowers.

“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 statement said.

“Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern.”

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 defines an “urgent concern” as, among other things, “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law of Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information.”

The old form included two pages of background information on the ICWPA submission process. The section titled “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED” said:

ICIG 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.

That language does not appear along with the new version of the form dated August 2019, but it never meant that whistleblowers couldn’t file a complaint based on hearsay, or secondhand information, in the first place.

“It’s clear the language at issue is about what gets escalated, not what’s reportable,” tweeted Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Sanchez, whose studies focus on national security and intelligence surveillance. “What the form they’re citing” says is “‘this won’t go up the chain without something more,’ which the IG did indeed get in this case,” he explained in another tweet on the subject.

In fact, the old form gave filers the following options to indicate how they obtained the information that was being disclosed: “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; “Other employees have told me about events or records involved”; or “Other source(s) (please explain).”

“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,” the ICIG’s statement said. “The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law.”

The statement went on to add that since Michael Atkinson started as inspector general on May 29, 2018, “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 ICIG statement said that the whistleblower who filed the Aug. 12 complaint against Trump used the old form — not the new one — and checked the boxes indicating that the claims were based on both direct knowledge of events and information obtained from others. (The new form still asks similar questions.)

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, not only was there no rule change for complaints based on hearsay, but those details from the ICIG also refute claims that the whistleblower “had no firsthand knowledge,” as Jordan, the Ohio congressman, claimed in his interview with CNN’s Tapper.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/no...histleblowers/

Your take on the funds is as misinformed as your whistleblower falsehoods. You claim some funds were released before the July 25th call.

Once again you are lying.
No funds were released before Sept 11th. Anti-corruption steps had mage progress and were certified so the funds could be released in June.


"Congress approved the $250 million in military aid and an additional $141 million in assistance from the State Department last fall with bipartisan support.

At the end of February, the Pentagon told defense and foreign affairs committees on Capitol Hill that it was coordinating with the State Department to transfer $125 million in aid and equipment to Ukraine. Then, in May, the Pentagon notified the panels it would send the other $125 million, certifying that Ukraine had made progress on corruption, as lawmakers had required when they approved the funds.

That certification, two months before the president’s call with Zelensky, undermines one explanation Trump and his allies have offered for holding up the money — that it was because of broader concerns about corruption."

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...ss-impeachment

All of your very convenient (for your bullshit narrative) lies put you in a bad spot. Now you need a new story.
Tough to keep up with your lies.

You're a delusional liar. Every source you cited is a blatantly lib-retard anti-Trump propaganda organ for the dim-retard party. Per the old form the high muckety-mucks required FIRST HAND accounts -- the "law" hasn't got shit to do with the rules and procedures adopted by the command structure as long as the laws and procedures meet the minimum requirements of the law. Intelligent people know that.

[Munchmasterman]

You mean we need 20 repub senators to put country before party. And that won't happen.

But impeachment will.

You're pushing the fox news line that the people in the country are too stupid to follow what's going on. That like you, it's all about Ukraine and has nothing to do with the person whose own supporters (Graham) say he is too inept to have done a quid pro quo.

Being inept was an excuse offered up after the Mueller report came out too.

You think Americans aren't smart enough to follow the impeachment and that an inept person (the excuse given why no crimes committed) should be re-elected as President of the United States.

Now that's funny

"Sen. Lindsey Graham criticized the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry on Wednesday while also issuing a rebuke, and potentially a new talking point, that the Trump administration was too inept to carry out a quid pro quo in regard to Ukraine foreign policy."

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

We only have to consider whether 20 Republican Senators will be that stupid and the consensus on both left and right seems to suggest no, they will not be that stupid.


I'm guessing we'll see a poll if we haven't already asking the American voter "how important is this Ukraine matter to you"? To which most Americans I would predict would say "who" or "what Ukraine matter"?

[oeb11]

DPST's leadership does not want this to come to an impeachment trial in the Senate - which will destroy DPST house privilege to deny Conservative input at every moment.

An open and fair trial with the right to call itnesses in defense of the hokey "Trumped up" charges will shed light on issues and the DPST roaches will run for cover.

MMM- i hope you get your wish for a Senate trial - in the open and un slanted , biased, and prejudiced - as in Nadler, Pelosi, and Schiff.

Good luck - DPST's.

Your hatred will compel You to not wait for elections in Nov 2020 - and it will cost you dearly.



Now - YDKYS . liar liar, nazi nazi, and on and on.

[Yachtmaster]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Once again, you are lying out your ass.

There was only one complaint submitted and it's "urgent" status was not denied. On that complaint, the author checked the box that said he had first-hand knowledge and checked the box that said he had second-hand knowledge.
You have tried to use these well-proven lies numerous times and they have been debunked numerous times.
Typical trumpy. You use the "repeat a lie enough times....." method because it keeps the uneducated base in line.

"President Donald Trump and some of his defenders have advanced a bogus theory that whistleblower rules were changed to allow a complaint alleging misconduct by the president to be forwarded to Congress based only on secondhand information.

There was no such change in law or policy, according to a Sept. 30 statement issued by the independent Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

“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,” the three-page statement said.

The ICIG statement also said that the whistleblower had “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct” and that “other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations.”

He wasn’t the only one to claim a change had been made.

“I want to know why they changed the rules about whistleblowers,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sept. 29. “The hearsay rule was changed just a short period of time before the complaint was filed.”

And on CNN’s “State of the Union” the same day, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan said the unnamed whistleblower “had no firsthand knowledge” and had only “heard something from someone who may have heard something from someone.” That prompted a real-time fact-check from Jake Tapper, the show’s host.

“You know as well as I do that you do not need to have firsthand knowledge to be a whistleblower,” Tapper told Jordan.

“Well, you don’t now because they changed the form,” Jordan retorted. “You used to. They changed the form.”

“There’s no evidence of that,” Tapper shot back. “Experts say it has never been true that you need to have firsthand knowledge to be a whistleblower.”

Jordan’s office told us the congressman was referring to a change that was made to the May 24, 2018, version of ICWSP Form 401, which intelligence community whistleblowers previously used to submit complaints of potential wrongdoing.

The Federalist, a conservative online magazine, wrote about the form in a Sept. 27 story.

“Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,” the Federalist claimed. Trump shared the story on Twitter over the weekend.

The disclosure form was modified in August, but that did not change the rules for submitting complaints. Instead, in its Sept. 30 statement, the office of the ICIG said that particular form and a few others had been under review since earlier this year and were recently modified to clarify language that could have been misinterpreted by would-be whistleblowers.

“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 statement said.

“Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern.”

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 defines an “urgent concern” as, among other things, “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law of Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information.”

The old form included two pages of background information on the ICWPA submission process. The section titled “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED” said:

ICIG 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.

That language does not appear along with the new version of the form dated August 2019, but it never meant that whistleblowers couldn’t file a complaint based on hearsay, or secondhand information, in the first place.

“It’s clear the language at issue is about what gets escalated, not what’s reportable,” tweeted Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Sanchez, whose studies focus on national security and intelligence surveillance. “What the form they’re citing” says is “‘this won’t go up the chain without something more,’ which the IG did indeed get in this case,” he explained in another tweet on the subject.

In fact, the old form gave filers the following options to indicate how they obtained the information that was being disclosed: “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; “Other employees have told me about events or records involved”; or “Other source(s) (please explain).”

“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,” the ICIG’s statement said. “The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law.”

The statement went on to add that since Michael Atkinson started as inspector general on May 29, 2018, “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 ICIG statement said that the whistleblower who filed the Aug. 12 complaint against Trump used the old form — not the new one — and checked the boxes indicating that the claims were based on both direct knowledge of events and information obtained from others. (The new form still asks similar questions.)

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, not only was there no rule change for complaints based on hearsay, but those details from the ICIG also refute claims that the whistleblower “had no firsthand knowledge,” as Jordan, the Ohio congressman, claimed in his interview with CNN’s Tapper.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/no...histleblowers/

Your take on the funds is as misinformed as your whistleblower falsehoods. You claim some funds were released before the July 25th call.

Once again you are lying.
No funds were released before Sept 11th. Anti-corruption steps had mage progress and were certified so the funds could be released in June.


"Congress approved the $250 million in military aid and an additional $141 million in assistance from the State Department last fall with bipartisan support.

At the end of February, the Pentagon told defense and foreign affairs committees on Capitol Hill that it was coordinating with the State Department to transfer $125 million in aid and equipment to Ukraine. Then, in May, the Pentagon notified the panels it would send the other $125 million, certifying that Ukraine had made progress on corruption, as lawmakers had required when they approved the funds.

That certification, two months before the president’s call with Zelensky, undermines one explanation Trump and his allies have offered for holding up the money — that it was because of broader concerns about corruption."

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...ss-impeachment

All of your very convenient (for your bullshit narrative) lies put you in a bad spot. Now you need a new story.
Tough to keep up with your lies.

With all the contrary allegations about forms being changed and hearsay rules wouldn't it be of interest to the committee to hear directly from Eric Ciaramella? I would like to know about his state of mind and his understanding of the law. I think Schiff's refusal to call him as a witness is telling in and of itself.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Once again, you are lying out your ass.

There was only one complaint submitted and it's "urgent" status was not denied. On that complaint, the author checked the box that said he had first-hand knowledge and checked the box that said he had second-hand knowledge....

You fucking idiot. What was the whistleblower's "first-hand knowledge"? Oh wait, we can't question him on that, can we? Shifty Schiff won't allow it. We're told the dickwhistler was in the CIA, not the White House. Did he bug the Oval Office, or what? Was he lying when he checked the box claiming "first-hand knowledge"? Sounds like it. You whine about liars all the time, aren't you curious to find out whether the dickwhistler lied?

Then you revert to your usual MO and copy-paste something a mile long, knowing few people will have the patience to read it. Funny part is, your mile-long citation is a joke. It doesn't say what you want it to. It tells us that BEFORE the form change, you could file a dickwhistler complaint based on hearsay, but it wouldn't go anywhere. AFTER the August 2019 form change (which every sentient observer has reason to suspect was implemented to help this particular dickwhistler complaint move forward), hearsay-based filings could suddenly go right up the chain of command.

So yeah, the form change and its timing smells fishy to anyone whose olfactory nerves still function. Sniff, sniff. Ewwww! Too bad your febreze ain't working, munchy. You should read your own shitposts before puking them out at us.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yachtmaster

With all the contrary allegations about forms being changed and hearsay rules wouldn't it be of interest to the committee to hear directly from Eric Ciaramella? I would like to know about his state of mind and his understanding of the law. I think Schiff's refusal to call him as a witness is telling in and of itself.

Shhhhhh!!

Shifty says you're out of order! He and the dickwhistler's attorney Mark Zaid (the swampy POS who said "the coup has started" way back in Jan. 2017) are going to sue you for outing Eric!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You fucking idiot. What was the whistleblower's "first-hand knowledge"? Oh wait, we can't question him on that, can we? Shifty Schiff won't allow it. We're told the dickwhistler was in the CIA, not the White House. Did he bug the Oval Office, or what? Was he lying when he checked the box claiming "first-hand knowledge"? Sounds like it. You whine about liars all the time, aren't you curious to find out whether the dickwhistler lied?

.

We could question all of the first hand knowledge players if Trump would let them testify!

So far what the whistleblower reported has stood up as factual.

[oeb11]

I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale - wtf - at a bargain rate just for the DPST's.

How are Schiff and Nadler going to cover up all this clown show from the light of day???
LOL

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

We could question all of the first hand knowledge players if Trump would let them testify!

So far what the whistleblower reported has stood up as factual.

The dick-blower said his feelings were hurt, and that's all the fuck the dims have ... the claims of a whining bureaucrat who imagines he was the one who -- contrary to the Constitution -- delusionally imagines he should be making foreign policy.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The dick-blower said his feelings were hurt, and that's all the fuck the dims have ... the claims of a whining bureaucrat who imagines he was the one who -- contrary to the Constitution -- delusionally imagines he should be making foreign policy.

Trump can make all the foreign policy he wants....maybe he should then swear in Rudy as SoS and tell the American public he is going to withhold aide to another country until they dig up dirt on a political rival.

His problem was trying to do it on the sly.

Once he was caught he released the aid.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Trump can make all the foreign policy

That was the only intelligent and truthful part in your post. Now accept it and quit whining like a two-year-old who lost his pacifier.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so Trump fires a disloyal bitch and people are outraged?

who cares. he's the president and he can do that.


BAHHAAHHHAAHHAAAAAAA


maybe now you get why Trump doesn't trust the State Dept.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That was the only intelligent and truthful part in your post. Now accept it and quit whining like a two-year-old who lost his pacifier.

If you want to suck on something, I suggest you pull the pacifier from your asshole.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you want to suck on something, I suggest you pull the pacifier from your asshole.

It's trivially obvious that it is the lib-retards who are the born "suckers", per your "Rainbow Buddies" Smollett and Schitty.