Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[snafu]

31 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

(5)

(A)

An employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report such complaint or information to the Inspector General.

(B)

Not later than the end of the 14-calendar-day period beginning on the date of receipt from an employee of a complaint or information under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible. Upon making such a determination, the Inspector General shall transmit to the Director a notice of that determination, together with the complaint or information.

(C)

Upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector General under subparagraph (B), the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees, together with any comments the Director considers appropriate.

(D)

(i)

If the Inspector General does not find credible under subparagraph (B) a complaint or information submitted under subparagraph (A), or does not transmit the complaint or information to the Director in accurate form under subparagraph (B), the employee (subject to clause (ii)) may submit the complaint or information to Congress by contacting either or both of the congressional intelligence committees directly.

(ii)An employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee—

(I)

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 congressional intelligence committees directly; and

(II)

obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices.

(iii)

A member or employee of one of the congressional intelligence committees who receives a complaint or information under this subparagraph does so in that member or employee’s official capacity as a member or employee of such committee.

(E)

The Inspector General shall notify an employee who reports a complaint or information to the Inspector General under this paragraph of each action taken under this paragraph with respect to the complaint or information. Such notice shall be provided not later than 3 days after any such action is taken.

(F)

An action taken by the Director or the Inspector General under this paragraph shall not be subject to judicial review.

(G)In this paragraph, the term “urgent concern” means any of the following:

(i)

A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.

(ii)

A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.

(iii)

An action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B) of this section in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern in accordance with this paragraph.

(H)

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the protections afforded to an employee under section 3517(d) of this title or section 8H of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).

(I)

An individual who has submitted a complaint or information to the Inspector General under this section may notify any member of either of the congressional intelligence committees, or a staff member of either of such committees, of the fact that such individual has made a submission to the Inspector General, and of the date on which such submission was made.

(6)

In accordance with section 535 of title 28, the Inspector General shall expeditiously report to the Attorney General any information, allegation, or complaint received by the Inspector General relating to violations of Federal criminal law that involves [1] a program or operation of an element of the intelligence community, or in the relationships between the elements of the intelligence community, consistent with such guidelines as may be issued by the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of such section. A copy of each such report shall be furnished to the Director.

 

I'm really not sure it matters or not, but if the info in the attached article is correct (I copied the relevant language), the Inspector General mishandled the complaint and notified Congress directly.  Seems as though he should have sent the complaint to the DNI (see 5(a)(b)(c), above).  Then the Director decides what to do with the complaint.  If the Inspector General doesn't find the complaint credible, then the Whistleblower (under certain conditions) can go straight to Congress.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-ordered-hold-on-military-aid-days-before-calling-ukrainian-president-officials-say/2019/09/23/df93a6ca-de38-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

 

Mid-August is also when a whistleblower from the intelligence community filed a complaint regarding Trump and Ukraine to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. Atkinson informed the House and Senate intelligence committees of the complaint’s existence Sept. 9 — the same day three House committees launched an investigation to determine whether Trump and his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, had improperly pushed Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by snafu

[KRC]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

This is stupid. Your guy has been caught red handed, that doesn't mean you get off by simply raising a false claim. 

 

False claim? It's on tape.

[B-Man]

5 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

False claim? It's on tape.

 

 

You're wasting your time.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[KRC]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

You're wasting your time.

 

Just playing whack-a-mole for a little enjoyment. I wasn't expecting anything serious out of him.

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033

 

What part of that law requires a president to do anything?

 

Bonus question you won't answer: how, exactly, is this supposed phone call an 'intelligence community' issue?

[B-Man]

 

....You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

What part of that law requires a president to do anything?

 

Bonus question you won't answer: how, exactly, is this supposed phone call an 'intelligence community' issue?

 The guy works for the president and is obviously cover up at the request of president. Ya, I'm sure you will say he is (ha ha) covering this up on his own but that's ######ed. 

 

And your bonus question can't be answered because the president is hiding the complaint so we don't know what's in it. 

20 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

False claim? It's on tape.

Call Fox News so they can try and make this a real fake thing, then. Why you wasting time spreading the lie here? 

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

....You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!

 

 

 

And the whistleblower allegation? That will be turned over to Congress? 

[B-Man]

 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

Isn't that exactly what you, Trump and the rest are doing? Trump's afraid of the whistleblower report so he's trying to turn Biden into a criminal. No one is buying it. 

 

What a flop 

[DC Tom]

46 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Let me get this straight. It’s illegal for the President of the United States to inquire with a foreign leader about whether the next president (Biden) may be guilty of a crime, prior to him getting elected?  Isn’t that exactly what Obama was doing with Trump prior to his election? Doesn’t anyone see the irony in any of this? Sheeeesh!

 

I'll do you one better: it's illegal for the President to influence a foreign country to restart an investigation that was influenced by the previous Vice President to stop the same investigation. 

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'll do you one better: it's illegal for the President to influence a foreign country to restart an investigation that was influenced by the previous Vice President to stop the same investigation. 

You are such an idiot 

[ALF]

Looks like 5 PM Pelosi  will announce impeach proceed or not. The phone call transcript for Ukraine  not out till tomorrow, maybe too late .

[B-Man]

30 minutes ago, ALF said:

Looks like 5 PM Pelosi  will announce impeach proceed or not. The phone call transcript for Ukraine  not out till tomorrow, maybe too late .

 

 

It's not a matter of being "too late" at all

 

The democrats will be seen as non-serious legislators consumed with their Ahab-like crusade.

 

 

 

Bluff CALLED! Trump announcing he’ll release Ukraine transcript has media tripping all over themselves MOVING goalposts

.

 

 

 

.

Edited September 24, 2019 by B-Man

[John Adams]

1 hour ago, KRC said:

 

So, we shouldn't investigate corruption, or only investigate corruption if it involves Republicans?

 

Is it OK with you if president withheld hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars Congressionally-earmarked for a foreign country unless it investigated his leading political rival? 

 

Is that the America you want to live in? 

 

 

[KRC]

Just now, John Adams said:

 

Is it OK with you if president withheld hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars Congressionally-earmarked for a foreign country unless it investigated his leading political rival? 

 

Is that the America you want to live in? 

 

 

 

It is not OK for Trump to do it. It is not OK for Biden to do it. It is not OK for Chris Murphy to do it. That is the America I want to live in.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Is it OK with you if president withheld hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars Congressionally-earmarked for a foreign country unless it investigated his leading political rival? 

 

Is that the America you want to live in? 

 

 

Isn't that the America we live in? 

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Is it OK with you if president withheld hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars Congressionally-earmarked for a foreign country unless it investigated his leading political rival? 

 

Is that the America you want to live in? 

 

 

Yes it’s OK with me. The President should be solely responsible for our dealings with foreign countries. Just because Congress earmarks funds, it doesn’t mandate that the checks be cut.

[John Adams]

11 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

It is not OK for Trump to do it. It is not OK for Biden to do it. It is not OK for Chris Murphy to do it. That is the America I want to live in.

 

It was wrong when it was done to Trump. It is wrong now. 

 

In this exact thread is we are talking about the current sitting president and what the repercussions will be if the transcript shows what has been reported.

 

We know for sure:

 

- He withheld the money (and later released it after pressured by Congress when the media broke the story that he'd withheld it)

 - He had the call.

- Trump said, "The conversation I had was largely congratulatory. It was largely corruption—all of the corruption taking place. It was largely the fact that we don’t want our people, like Vice President Biden and his son, creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine,” ... With apologies for his mangling of our mother tongue, I don't know if this means he pressured Zelensky on the call directly about Biden...or if he just applied general pressure regarding corruption...or as is his want and most likely, he applied pressure about Biden in a wink-wink way. 

- Rudy is about as clear as mud but acting at the president's behest, he's applied pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden. 

 

What will be interesting is if he put pressure on the Ukraine on the call to investigate anyone by name, and in particular anyone other than Biden. I would not think the Bidens are the only possible dirty dealers in the Ukraine and singling Hunter Biden out would be troubling. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by John Adams

[B-Man]

John Cardillo‏Verified account @johncardillo 34s34 seconds ago

Democrats’ ‘Ukraine scandal’

 

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

What will be interesting is if he put pressure on the Ukraine on the call to investigate anyone by name, and in particular anyone other than Biden. I would not think the Bidens are the only possible dirty dealers in the Ukraine and singling Hunter Biden out would be troubling. 

You really don’t get it! Biden is not running for dog catcher. He’s applying to be the President of the United States. If he’s corrupt, I’d expect the sitting President to inquire about it. On the other hand....What was wrong was when the Democrats made up lies about Trump! It wasn’t wrong for Obama to be concerned that a candidate from either party was already compromised...which Trump wasn’t...according to the Mueller Report.