- 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
re: The Whstleblower lied from the outset, claimed to have "firsthand" knowledge of misconduct
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:24 pm to bamarep
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:24 pm to bamarep
quote:
The IG said the whistleblower stated on an initial form Aug. 12 "that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information."
When was that rule change again? Implicit in this statement is there were more than one form for the same person.
Sounds like they knew this wasn't going to fly and would get shot to shite quickly (because of all the inaccuracies and downright wrong shite), so they went with the "second-hand" route under the new rule.
2
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:44 pm to MontanaTiger
quote:
So what is it then? And why do all the news reports call it a transcript?
Well, this is what the document says on its first page:
quote:
CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.
So it is not a transcript. It is a "Memorandum" prepared by staff.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:22 pm to bamarep
Deja Vu
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:24 pm to bamarep
CNN reporting that today's IG report says "Whistlblower is credible and had some first hand knowledge per the form they filled out"
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:26 pm to udtiger
quote:
Sounds like they knew this wasn't going to fly and would get shot to shite quickly (because of all the inaccuracies and downright wrong shite), so they went with the "second-hand" route under the new rule.
CNN saying the rule was changed in 2018
what is the rule and who changes it?
where is this talking point coming from?
better be right
regardless, why isn't anyone asking about the dirt, they keep trying to prevent the dirt from being discussed...by this complaint?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:28 pm to SOSFAN
quote:
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that he lied about 1st hand knowledge? Is it because it doesn't fit your narrative
Probably because CNN has been running this all day long...
"IG said, whistleblower had some first hand knowledge, as per the form they filled out"
but the complaint repeatedly says "I didn't have first hand" information, so and so told me"
where is the truth people? where is it?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:39 pm to bmy
quote:
IMO Facts are all that should matter
Then since the complaint (second hand hearsay) is in conflict with the call transcript (actual fact), you should shut the frick up.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:52 pm to TBoy
quote:
So it is not a transcript. It is a "Memorandum" prepared by staff.
It’s still the best accounting of what was actually said. It’s much more solid evidence than a bunch of hearsay in the complaint. Nice try, though.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:56 pm to bmy
You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy. Why do you defend this shite? You know full well what's happening here and you don't have to defend it just because you are a democrat.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:01 pm to Hoodatt
quote:
Which Ukrainian officials are being referred to in this quote? I thought the call was between Trump and Zelensky. Was there another part of the call with other parties conversing?
Why is future bracketed in your quote?
Thanks.
It's not specified in the complaint or at least I don't recall it being specified. We'd probably have to ask the US envoy that just resigned or Rudy G. It will come out eventually.
Future is bracketed because other people here seriously struggle to comprehend what they read.. as seen in the other responses to this post
It's just a helpful tip to our low ability friends.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:12 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy. Why do you defend this shite? You know full well what's happening here and you don't have to defend it just because you are a democrat.
I distrust both parties.. so this is really a win-win for me.
Investigating crowdstrike = good
Investigating a credible allegation against Trump = good (and realistically Rudy G is who will take heat for this)
If everyone held their own party to the same standard they old the opposition party.. we'd be in a much better place and there would be far less crooks running the show.
It just so happens that this forum is the best moderated (aka I haven't been permabanned yet) political talk out there.. and it happens to be 95+% hardcore republican. I despise nationalism so even my views that lean conservative are seen as commie/liberal
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 6:16 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:15 pm to bmy
quote:
Investigating Trump
For a phone call? Thats good
You are just as dishonest as Hero Hank
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:17 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
For a phone call? Thats good
for the love of god man
the complaint alleges the phone call was contingent on a quid pro quo that happened before the phone call. that's the only point point i'm trying to make here.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:19 pm to bmy
quote:
the complaint alleges the phone call was contingent on a quid pro quo that happened before the phone call. that's the only point point i'm trying to make here.
Just stop
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:20 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
The IG was Atkinson, who is a Clinton lackey
Someone probably should have told POTUS that when he appointed Atkinson IC IG last August.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:00 pm to bmy
quote:
I distrust both parties..
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:02 pm to BugAC
Hillary is the Antichrist about to limp back on the world stage to herd us into the glorious world order
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:04 pm to bamarep
quote:quote:
The inspector general for the intelligence community said late Monday that the whistleblower whose complaint touched off an impeachment inquiry claimed to have firsthand knowledge of misconduct -- a claim that appears to conflict with documents sent to Congress and the director of national intelligence. The lengthy statement Monday was posted in response to questions, raised in the media and by congressional Republicans, about the disclosure form filed by the whistleblower, who first flagged concerns about President Trump's July phone call in which he asked the leader of Ukraine to "look into" actions by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. The IG said the whistleblower stated on an initial form Aug. 12 "that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information."
So ANOTHER Dem attempt to subvert an open and free election was based on a fricking lie.
Where have we heard this story before?
Sounds more like another sad attempt by Repubs to lie and redirect from the truth:
The original whistleblower complaint to the ICIG:
"I was not a direct witness to MOST of the events described".
Complainant's Letter to IC IG
Most does not equal "all". This therefore implies that there were in fact a number of events that the whistleblower WAS in direct witness to. The linked Fox article is titled,
"Intelligence watchdog now says whistleblower claimed 'first-hand' knowledge, in departure from declassified complaint"
To make such a title, is to make very much the implication that the "Intelligence Watchdog" - known formally as the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) - stated initially that the whistleblower complainant had none nor gave no such information that was derived through first-hand knowledge, when the ICIG made no such implication whatsoever in ANY documentation, letters, nor statements known to the public at this time. This is once again a very obvious case of FAKE NEWS that Fox has been entrenched deeply within since before Trump was elected President.
In the ICIG's statement dated September 30th, 2019 that the Fox article references:
quote:
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 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.
ICIG Statement On Processing Whistleblower Complaints
So, the TRUTH is - despite what Fox reports - is that according to the ICIG an intelligence community whistleblower complainant need not have ANY first-hand knowledge of an abuse of authority in order to file a complaint of urgent concern. But according to the whistleblower in this particular case, he/she actually DID have some degree of first-hand knowledge, just the same.....
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 7:24 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:08 pm to udtiger
quote:
When was that rule change again? Implicit in this statement is there were more than one form for the same person.
Sounds like they knew this wasn't going to fly and would get shot to shite quickly (because of all the inaccuracies and downright wrong shite), so they went with the "second-hand" route under the new rule.
No, just sounds like you're pretty ignorant of the English word. "Initial" means "at the beginning" - the ICIG referred to the August 12th form, which is the only complaint submitted by the whistleblower AT THE BEGINNING, which was dated August 12, 2019.....
Secondly, it also appears that you just cannot read nor interpret what you read. It was the Fox reporter that published the linked article that said "initial" - there is no mention of "initial" anything to the whistleblower's letter to the ICIG, nor either the ICIG's letter to the DNI, or the follow-up letter explaining the complaint process that was put out yesterday. So you just have an argument with Greg Re and Catherine Herridge of Fox News, and no one else....
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 7:22 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 7:14 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:
Neither the WB or the IG knew what was in the transcript. There was no way the IG could vet any facts, and has said that. All IG had was basic info. Now looks like egg on everyone involved after everything was declassified
By vetting, all the ICIG could do - and did do - was determine that the complaint met all the conditions required for it to merit being forwarded to the head of his agency - the DNI - and that it merited conditions for being a complaint "of urgent concern". The ICIG does not have authority to perform an investigation into the accusations in the first place. That authority falls on Congress.....
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News