- 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
When did Schiff learn about the CIA’s whistleblower rule change?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:22 pm
This would be an excellent question for a reporter to ask of Mr. Schiff.
4
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:23 pm to Eli Goldfinger
When he was in the meeting where they proposed it as a way to finally get the Bad Orange Man.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:23 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Form change*?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:26 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:Ad nauseum repetition of a falsehood does not convert it to truth.
When did Schiff learn about the CIA’s whistleblower rule change?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:26 pm to Eli Goldfinger
When they decided that, if they changed the rule (er... form), then they could use that change in an attempt to finally get Trump.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:27 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Ad nauseum repetition of a falsehood does not convert it to truth.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:27 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Ad nauseum repetition of a falsehood does not convert it to truth.
Then when will the Democrats stop doing it?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Ad nauseum repetition of a falsehood does not convert it to truth.
So what would you call it?
Also...the irony in that statement being written by a democrat is incredible.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:29 pm to PsychTiger
quote:Probably never. They are not too bright.quote:Then when will the Democrats stop doing it?
Ad nauseum repetition of a falsehood does not convert it to truth.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:30 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
So what would you call it?
Oh, it was a rule change, no matter how HeroHank tries to dress it. And anyone who says it was simply a "form change" is being disingenuous to themselves.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:37 pm to PsychTiger
quote:Except that ain't happening.
When he was in the meeting where they proposed it as a way to finally get the Bad Orange Man.
Dims wanna impeach over incorrect hearsay from a contrived entity that was wrong.
In summary: we were wrong so you are in trouble.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:48 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:I have twice posted a link to a very informative article about the nature of the change in question.quote:So what would you call it?
Ad nauseum repetition of a falsehood does not convert it to truth.
quote:
It does not appear that any rule was changed at all. There was a small change in the formatting of one form, and an inaccurate paragraph was removed from the instructions for using that form.quote:quote:Here is a detailed article about the process surrounding the changes to the form in question.
“It seems like they are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, the regulatory framework, and the language on one form,” said Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.quote:
“There’s never been a requirement that a whistleblower have firsthand knowledge of what they’re reporting,” said Irvin McCullough, an investigator at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (and the son of a former IC IG). “They need to have a reasonable belief. The firsthand information is usually gathered by the inspector general, as I believe did occur here.”
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:49 pm to bmy
So I take it “form change” is the MSM talking point. 
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
“There’s never been a requirement that a whistleblower have firsthand knowledge of what they’re reporting,” said Irvin McCullough, an investigator at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (and the son of a former IC IG). “They need to have a reasonable belief. The firsthand information is usually gathered by the inspector general, as I believe did occur here.”
What does the rule say about hearsay?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:52 pm to GumboPot
quote:Oh well by all means he has to be correct!
(and the son of a former IC IG)
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:52 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
So I take it “form change” is the MSM talking point.
Yep!
And people like bmy and MeltyHank eat it up.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Ad nauseum repetition of a falsehood does not convert it to truth.
Wait, are we talking about Trump being a secret Russian super spy or him forcing the Ukraine to incriminate his political enemies by threatening to starve their military to death as Russia bears down on them? Maybe we are talking about Brett Kavanaugh's 80's raping spree or the sea of dead bodies left in the wake of ending net neutrality. I almost thought you were talking about the nuclear war we got into with China when Trump foolishly accepted a phone call from the Taiwanese president. I can't keep track anymore.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:56 pm to Vacherie Saint
I thought we were talking about 2 scoops.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:43 am to GumboPot
quote:In a legal sense? Probably nothing, because “hearsay” is an evidentiary term related to the admissibility of certain statements at trial. The more relevant question would be whether the second-hand account is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”
What does the rule say about hearsay?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:46 am to SSpaniel
quote:Yes they do.
And people like bmy and MeltyHank eat it up.
Because it is somehow beyond their comprehension that changing the form so close to the complaint is somehow strange and not normal behavior.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News