- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
McCarthy, Nunes, Jordan Demand Answers on Whistleblower Complaint Form Changes McCarthy an
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:17 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:17 pm
3
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:21 pm to Mulat
I wonder if they will inquire as to why it was also changed in 2018.
McCullough explained that to file a complaint a whistleblower is required only to have “reasonable belief” of wrongdoing and that, once the complaint is filed, it is up to the inspector general to acquire first-hand information and whether to deem the complaint credible.
“What the old form purported to explain to the whistleblowers was that the ICIG could not find their information credible unless they obtained first hand knowledge of the wrongdoing,” McCullough said.
“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 IC IG since May 24, 2018”...
“Complainant was not a direct witness to President’s telephone call with the Ukrainian President on July 25, 2019,” the IC IG wrote on Aug. 26. “Other information obtained during the preliminary review, however, supports the Complainant’s allegation that, among other things, during the call the President ‘sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.’”
McCullough explained that to file a complaint a whistleblower is required only to have “reasonable belief” of wrongdoing and that, once the complaint is filed, it is up to the inspector general to acquire first-hand information and whether to deem the complaint credible.
“What the old form purported to explain to the whistleblowers was that the ICIG could not find their information credible unless they obtained first hand knowledge of the wrongdoing,” McCullough said.
“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 IC IG since May 24, 2018”...
“Complainant was not a direct witness to President’s telephone call with the Ukrainian President on July 25, 2019,” the IC IG wrote on Aug. 26. “Other information obtained during the preliminary review, however, supports the Complainant’s allegation that, among other things, during the call the President ‘sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.’”
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:24 pm to bmy
Does the WB law cover the President, cause I thought it was only the intel agency
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:37 pm to bmy
quote:
“The whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern
And the evaluation (by who, exactly) was that there actually was an Urgent Concern to follow through with an investigation??
In the scheme of world and domestic events, what actually was the "urgent concern" as you understand it to be??
Serious question.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:49 pm to Dale51
quote:
And the evaluation (by who, exactly) was that there actually was an Urgent Concern to follow through with an investigation??
In the scheme of world and domestic events, what actually was the "urgent concern" as you understand it to be??
Serious question.
by the IG. Basically, the urgent concern (IMO) is that Trump and/or his proxies are using the authority of their official positions to benefit Trump personally
April 25, Biden launches campaign
May 1, Rudy G (speaking about his planned and later cancelled trip to the Ukraine) said "We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do... There’s nothing illegal about it." “Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation... because that information will be very, very helpful to my client". He also said that Trump "basically knows what I'm doing" and indicated that Trump supported it.
July 18, Trump admin informed officials that ~$400 million in aid to Ukraine was being withheld.
July 19, Volker (who has since resigned) texted Rudy G “Mr. Mayor—really enjoyed breakfast this morning, As discussed, connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky.” After the call, Mr. Yermak—whom Mr. Giuliani has said he urged to have the Ukrainian government pursue an investigation into Joe Biden —told Mr. Giuliani he was “sure things will move quickly from today onwards and we will be able to take this relationship to a new level,” according to a text message viewed by the Journal.
July 25, six days after the text, Trump spoke to Zelensky on the phone (this is the conversation we have seen transcripts of).
August 00?, "Shortly after" July 25 phone call, Rudy G. met with Mr. Yermak in Spain and said that he was "pretty confident they’re going to investigate it.”
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:52 pm to bmy
quote:
“Other information obtained during the preliminary review, however, supports the Complainant’s allegation that, among other things, during the call the President ‘sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid
Wuuch was obviously not the transcript.
Didn't you say in the other thread facts are what matters?
The transcript is FACT.
The complaint is second hand bullshite.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:52 pm to bmy
quote:
by the IG. Basically, the urgent concern (IMO) is that Trump and/or his proxies are using the authority of their official positions to benefit Trump personally
Thats nice and all...but doesn't have any relation to the question I asked.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:56 pm to udtiger
quote:
Wuuch was obviously not the transcript.
Didn't you say in the other thread facts are what matters?
The transcript is FACT.
The complaint is second hand bullshite.
It's sad AF that you can't read and that I have to post this for the 35th time.
The complaint alleges that...
Ukrainian officials were "led to believe that a meeting or phone call between" Trump and Zelensky would depend on Zelensky's willingness to "play ball"
The phrase "depends on" mean that the phone call we have transcripts of was contingent upon Ukraine being willing to "play ball".
Why would you expect to see a quid pro quo in the actual transcript?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:59 pm to bmy
Play ball was for corruption. Can’t give aid to corrupt individuals...Plus, Ukraine didn’t know aid had a hold on it till released at request of a Utah senator
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:59 pm to bmy
quote:
bmy
Bless your heart
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:01 pm to bmy
quote:
t's sad AF that you can't read and that I have to post this for the 35th time.
The complaint alleges that...
Ukrainian officials were "led to believe that a meeting or phone call between" Trump and Zelensky would depend on Zelensky's willingness to "play ball"
The phrase "depends on" mean that the phone call we have transcripts of was contingent upon Ukraine being willing to "play ball".
Why would you expect to see a quid pro quo in the actual transcript?
What's sad as frick is you are a fricking idiot.
It's not in the transcript because it didn't happen.
The two principals to the phone call say it didn't happen.
Not a single person that was in the room has said it happened or reported to the ICIG that it happened.
The only person that claims it happened is a person that wasn't in the room, wasn't on the call, and has completely missed on key details of the call (including who was on it).
Oh...and that person is apparently insisting on anonymity and to not disclose their "sources".
Your regurgitation of the same bullshite is evidence you are nothing but a shill.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 8:02 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:06 pm to bmy
quote:
The phrase "depends on" mean that the phone call we have transcripts of was contingent upon Ukraine being willing to "play ball".
Why would you expect to see a quid pro quo in the actual transcript?
Well an anonymous whistle blower with anonymous 2nd hand sources made grand promises about the phone call....then the transcript was released. Oooops!
And the guy being strong armed didn't even know the $$ was being withheld. We should impeach Trump for sucking at extortion! At least Biden made his play known dammit.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:10 pm to udtiger
quote:
What's sad as frick is you are a fricking idiot.
It's not in the transcript because it didn't happen.
The two principals to the phone call say it didn't happen.
Not a single person that was in the room has said it happened or reported to the ICIG that it happened.
The only person that claims it happened is a person that wasn't in the room, wasn't on the call, and has completely missed on key details of the call (including who was on it).
Oh...and that person is apparently insisting on anonymity and to not disclose their "sources".
Your regurgitation of the same bullshite is evidence you are nothing but a shill.
Do you know what the word "contingent" means? I'm not saying Trump is guilty -- I'm just trying to explain to your retarded arse what the whistleblower is alleging
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 8:11 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:42 pm to bmy
quote:
I'm not saying Trump is guilty -- I'm just trying to explain to your retarded arse what the whistleblower is alleging
Uh Huh...
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:44 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:
Does the WB law cover the President, cause I thought it was only the intel agency
That is correct. They changed it to include the president but forgot to include it in the footnotes. Sloppy....Dan Bongino nails it again with his research.
And let’s not forget the ICIG’s legal counsel during his previous job was John Carlin. The final reviewer of the Woods Procedures during this he FISA review and Honest Bob Mueller’s former chief of staff. Another swamp creature exposed.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 8:48 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:47 pm to bmy
All of that is spin. The complaint “alleges”, blah, blah, blah. Nothing concrete or remotely so, just what the Dems and you want everyone to believe
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:02 pm to bmy
quote:
bmy
Earlier today I explained it to you. There was no quid pro quo. You believe there was one because the whistleblower claimed there was one. The transcript destroys that narrative proving the whistleblower was relaying hearsay and thus, was propagating a lie, that you are only too willing to believe.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:08 pm to deathvalleytiger10
bmy is trying to dazzle you with bullshite. He knows he lost this one.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:09 pm to BugAC
quote:Not to mention the Ukrainian president denied it as well.
You believe there was one because the whistleblower claimed there was one. The transcript destroys that narrative proving the whistleblower was relaying hearsay and thus, was propagating a lie, that you are only too willing to believe.
He chooses to believe the whistleblower because it fits the narrative that he wants.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:10 pm to BugAC
quote:
Earlier today I explained it to you. There was no quid pro quo. You believe there was one because the whistleblower claimed there was one. The transcript destroys that narrative proving the whistleblower was relaying hearsay and thus, was propagating a lie, that you are only too willing to believe.
Bmy is a fraud like Hero Hank
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News