Offical Impeachment Thread

[playtime]

morrison who took the transcript & hid it in the super secure vault, was asked several times why didn't he go to his superior with it first, thus rejecting proper protocol---he couldn't answer it.

Not quite. Morrison reported the call to White House lawyers - not because of the brazen, obvious corruption, but because it would be politically damaging if leaked. Upon his (and Vindman's) report of the call, the White House lawyers hid away the transcript. Morrison further testified that, when he looked for the transcript a day later, he couldn't find it. He then inquired about its whereabouts and was told, it was on a code-word protected server to which he had no access. Upon asking the White House lawyers why that was, he was allegedly told it was merely a clerical error.

The whining about "proper protocol" was aimed at Vindman, who reported the call to the lawyers without going to his superior (Morrison) first.

Morrison refuses to answer why he 'skipped' chain of command on reporting call
Rep. Val Demings, D-Florida, repeatedly questioned Morrison on why he chose to go directly to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg with his concerns about the July 25 phone call instead of reporting it up his chain of command to the deputy national security adviser Dr. Charlie Kupperman. Demings said if he felt there was nothing improper about the conversation, why did he "skip" his chain of command?

"I don't think I did skip my chain of command," Morrison said, saying that his relationship with Eisenberg was largely focused on "administrative matters" such as locking down the transcript.

Demings continued to press him, asking why he was so concerned about the legal adviser being aware of "this call that you saw nothing, basically, wrong with the substance or content of the call?"

Morrison said he was concerned because he didn't see a member of the legal office in the listening room on the call, and he wanted them to "be aware of what had transpired."
Impeachment hearing live: Morrison and Volker testify

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

QUOTE="Ray From Cleveland, post: 23522585, member: 55493"]

I think I am wrong but had Biden even declared his candidacy when the phone call occurred?

Biden announced his candidacy in April which is long before the call.

I thought so and thanks although if it’s April to July same year that’s just 3 months so no real traction gained to determine if Biden was The serious contender.
Next question is what office is Hunter Biden running for as he and not Joe seem to be the focus of any inquiry.

I look at it this way: Hunter knew he got the job because of his father, and his father knew he got the job because of his position in our federal government. They both know what was up when that happened.

I'm sure it goes on all the time, but given the fact Biden admitted that Trump put him in charge of Ukraine affairs, because he got his son a job there, Joe should have asked DumBama to put him in charge of somewhere else as it was a conflict of interest, and let another person be in charge of Ukraine.

you meant obammy right? not trump.[/QUOTE]

 

[playtime]

the WB is insignificant now. on the streets, he would be the informant. now pay close attention, ray ray & see if this makes sense.

A) if someone calls in a fire on 9-1-1 & the firemen show up & there indeed is a blaze, their job is to put out the fire; not go looking for who called it in.

B) the WB went thru proper protocol & gave all pertinent info - including the names of the people who gave him/her the lowdown to the IG who testified that the info was credible.

The ICIG had no authority to even take the report, much less do anything else with it. Presidential diplomatic calls do not fall under the authority or responsibility of the DNI as required.

.

wrong.

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

(September 30, 2019) The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) processes complaints or information with respect to alleged urgent concerns in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) and the ICIG’s authorizing statute. With respect to the whistleblower complaint received by the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG processed and reviewed the complaint in accordance with the law.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

Perhaps you should have read a bit further, from your link. My B/U

The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respect to an “urgent concern,” which is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the 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.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant alleged information with respect to such an alleged urgent concern.

.

the WB went to congress with an urgent concern after his complaint was going to get buried. when he/she did that - they were then instructed to go to the IG.

And I just proved, the ICIG has no jurisdiction. So this so called WB isn't really a WB. is he? He has no claim to remain anonymous because he took his "concern" to the wrong place. My question now is, if Vidman violated the espionage act by reading in someone, about the call, who didn't have a need to know.

.

vidman is a spy? is that what you are saying???????????????????? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........................

dismissed.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Sondland:

Trump said to me: "I want nothing. I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky — President Zelensky to do the right thing."

Dimms, you are done. That’s Sondland’s direct testimony.

 

[jc456]

morrison who took the transcript & hid it in the super secure vault, was asked several times why didn't he go to his superior with it first, thus rejecting proper protocol---he couldn't answer it.

Not quite. Morrison reported the call to White House lawyers - not because of the brazen, obvious corruption, but because it would be politically damaging if leaked. Upon his (and Vindman's) report of the call, the White House lawyers hid away the transcript. Morrison further testified that, when he looked for the transcript a day later, he couldn't find it. He then inquired about its whereabouts and was told, it was on a code-word protected server to which he had no access. Upon asking the White House lawyers why that was, he was allegedly told it was merely a clerical error.

The whining about "proper protocol" was aimed at Vindman, who reported the call to the lawyers without going to his superior (Morrison) first.

Morrison refuses to answer why he 'skipped' chain of command on reporting call
Rep. Val Demings, D-Florida, repeatedly questioned Morrison on why he chose to go directly to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg with his concerns about the July 25 phone call instead of reporting it up his chain of command to the deputy national security adviser Dr. Charlie Kupperman. Demings said if he felt there was nothing improper about the conversation, why did he "skip" his chain of command?

"I don't think I did skip my chain of command," Morrison said, saying that his relationship with Eisenberg was largely focused on "administrative matters" such as locking down the transcript.

Demings continued to press him, asking why he was so concerned about the legal adviser being aware of "this call that you saw nothing, basically, wrong with the substance or content of the call?"

Morrison said he was concerned because he didn't see a member of the legal office in the listening room on the call, and he wanted them to "be aware of what had transpired."
Impeachment hearing live: Morrison and Volker testify

he didn't skip chain of command, you didn't listen well. he went to his peer. you missed it obviously. The legal group wasn't on the call. he gave them the update. they were supposed to be on the call.

 

[jc456]

The ICIG had no authority to even take the report, much less do anything else with it. Presidential diplomatic calls do not fall under the authority or responsibility of the DNI as required.

.

wrong.

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

(September 30, 2019) The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) processes complaints or information with respect to alleged urgent concerns in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) and the ICIG’s authorizing statute. With respect to the whistleblower complaint received by the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG processed and reviewed the complaint in accordance with the law.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

Perhaps you should have read a bit further, from your link. My B/U

The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respect to an “urgent concern,” which is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the 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.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant alleged information with respect to such an alleged urgent concern.

.

the WB went to congress with an urgent concern after his complaint was going to get buried. when he/she did that - they were then instructed to go to the IG.

And I just proved, the ICIG has no jurisdiction. So this so called WB isn't really a WB. is he? He has no claim to remain anonymous because he took his "concern" to the wrong place. My question now is, if Vidman violated the espionage act by reading in someone, about the call, who didn't have a need to know.

.

vidman is a spy? is that what you are saying???????????????????? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........................

dismissed.

did we stutter?

 

[ColonelAngus]

The ICIG had no authority to even take the report, much less do anything else with it. Presidential diplomatic calls do not fall under the authority or responsibility of the DNI as required.

.

wrong.

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

(September 30, 2019) The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) processes complaints or information with respect to alleged urgent concerns in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) and the ICIG’s authorizing statute. With respect to the whistleblower complaint received by the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG processed and reviewed the complaint in accordance with the law.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

Perhaps you should have read a bit further, from your link. My B/U

The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respect to an “urgent concern,” which is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the 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.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant alleged information with respect to such an alleged urgent concern.

.

the WB went to congress with an urgent concern after his complaint was going to get buried. when he/she did that - they were then instructed to go to the IG.

And I just proved, the ICIG has no jurisdiction. So this so called WB isn't really a WB. is he? He has no claim to remain anonymous because he took his "concern" to the wrong place. My question now is, if Vidman violated the espionage act by reading in someone, about the call, who didn't have a need to know.

.

vidman is a spy? is that what you are saying???????????????????? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........................

dismissed.

Are you guys talking about Vindman? Let’s at least get the name right for the POS who leaked for political purposes rather than go up the chain of command.

Vindman is trash. Let him go be the Defense Minister of Ukraine.

 

[Olde Europe]

Morrison refuses to answer why he 'skipped' chain of command on reporting call
Rep. Val Demings, D-Florida, repeatedly questioned Morrison on why he chose to go directly to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg with his concerns about the July 25 phone call instead of reporting it up his chain of command to the deputy national security adviser Dr. Charlie Kupperman. Demings said if he felt there was nothing improper about the conversation, why did he "skip" his chain of command?

"I don't think I did skip my chain of command," Morrison said, saying that his relationship with Eisenberg was largely focused on "administrative matters" such as locking down the transcript.

Demings continued to press him, asking why he was so concerned about the legal adviser being aware of "this call that you saw nothing, basically, wrong with the substance or content of the call?"

Morrison said he was concerned because he didn't see a member of the legal office in the listening room on the call, and he wanted them to "be aware of what had transpired."
Impeachment hearing live: Morrison and Volker testify

Ah, you referenced another part of the hearing. I stand corrected. Admittedly, I largely skipped the Committee members' questioning.

 

[OKTexas]

Abuse of Power. Wake up.

Exercise of power is not abuse of it. Go back to sleep.

he's not allowed to exercise his power. isn't that clear?

Not for his personal benefit he's not.

where did he do that? He is the commander in chief and allowed to look into corruption to the state. didn't you know that? wow, you aren't american.

He was looking to tear down his biggest political threat. Everyone honest knows that.

Two time loser quid pro joe is only a threat to himself. He's laying off staff and cutting back on ads because he isn't raising enough money.

.

 

[playtime]

you know damn well that she is only a piece of the impeachable puzzle polchicky.

LOL!!!!!!!! breitbart??????????

Breitbart
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.

Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims.

Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Failed Fact Checks
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180
Breitbart - Media Bias/Fact Check

bite meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She is no piece of the impeachable puzzle. She can just testify that she was canned.
What you people call evidence is hilarious.

that is gonna start changing CONsiderably with tomorrow's testimony. pence's aid is a first person witness to that 2nd call & then there's sondland. whoooooweeeeeee that is gonna rock!

And you're so convinced that their testimony is going to be damaging to Trump. Why? Because your left wing sources told you that.

nooooooooooooo............. because they are first person witness'. like i said. the (R)s have been whining about 'hearsay'... that's it's not legit testimony... yada yada yada...

outside chain of command which is a military crime.

military command? wtf are you talkng about? the only one that might a concern is the lt colonel & if something is illegal or a conscientious objection, then that doesn't apply away.

 

[forkup]

I think what it's really about is he (or she) would be dragged into the Senate to answer questions Schiff don't want asked, such as, who did he go to first with his complaint? Who authored his complaint, because anybody that read it stated it was done by a legal professional and not the whistleblower. Did he ever discuss the situation personally with Schiff? Is this an anti-trumper?

Schiff is not worried about protecting the whistleblower, he's worried about protecting himself.

Damn, I could swear that's what I just said. But I want to know if the individual Vidman leaked to, about the call, in the intel community had a legitimate need to know. If not Vidman violated protections of classified information, and possibly the espionage act. The FBI needs to look into that aspect of his testimony.

.

But that's not going to happen, so we will file that with the other trump cultist delusions:

*FLUSH*

what's trump's crime again? speaking of delusions?

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency.Obstruction of justice
-18 U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials
specifically:being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
official act;
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
-52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
specifically: (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. [USC02] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

Any more questions?

Isn't that exactly what Biden did? Seems to me it was.

Actually no.
being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
official act;

What I put in bold is the difference. There has been zero indication that Joe Biden acted inconsistently with official US foreign policy. Making his demand not corrupt. Nor had it a personal aspect since Hunter Biden wasn't being investigated by that prosecutor he wasn't even at Burisma at the time the 2 board members were under investigation. By the time Hunter entered the picture, the investigation was latent. Not only that but that prosecutor was targeted by the IMF and the British as being corrupt and he was the one that STOPPED the investigation in the first place. If you are truly interested you can check any fact-checker site on the internet. Not to mention articles written at the time of the occurrence.

And if that fails you can simply use common sense. Why ask Ukraine to investigate while not using the DOJ to do the same? Most of the facts, IF it was a real investigation into corruption will be found in the White House records, State department and DOJ. They have records of why that prosecutor had to be removed; not Ukraine.

The 2 others aren't applicable at all, since they deal with obstruction and election law.

 

[Zorro!]

what does the transcript says

Need a link for this. Kilroy2

Both Volker and Morrison said the less than two month delay of the aid had no effect on Ukraines defensive capabilities. And the Javelin missile sale was apart form that aid.

.

Did Obama EVER give them the Javelins they needed to take on Russian tanks?

nope. and he held their aid.

Why did Obama hold up Ukraine's aid?

 

[OKTexas]

Main failure from Democrats.

In the conversations, president Trump mentioned "Hunter Biden", and every time the president says the name "Biden" is not about the Democrat candidate but about the son HUNTER BIDEN, WHO IS NOT RUNNING AS A CANDIDATE, and is not running against president Trump.

It happens to be Hunter Biden is son of a Democrat candidate, but no one is against Biden the candidate but the investigation has been always about the possible corruption where Hunter Biden is involved.

Case closed.

"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

Stick with the truth, because, quite plainly, for a good liar you don't even have the most basic tools.

where is the 'or else'

There doesn't need to be an "or else". Zelensky asks for more Javelin missiles and Trump said "I need a favour FIRST". In order to get missiles he wanted, Zelensky FIRST had to do what Trump wanted. Because, as Trump said, the USA had been doing a LOT for the Ukraine, and the Ukraine hadn't done anything for the US.

You want missiles, Trump wants investigations. Quid pro quo. This for that. But the investigations weren't to help the USA, they were to help Donald J. Trump, and that is illegal on many scores. Attempted bribery, abuse of power, extortion. Over the past four days, it's all been laid out.

I love watching all of the weasels turning on each other and implicating one another. Weasels in a barrel.

Liar, Zelensky said they were ALMOST ready to buy more Javelins, when they were ready, they did. 3 more launchers and 75 Javelins.

.

 

[Zorro!]

The proper channel was for Rump to turn it over to the DOJ and have them open the investigation. Again, a President has tremendous power over countries through foreign aid. To even ask for a favor to have them "Look into a Political Rival" usually means, do it or else. You can word it any way you wish but that's how it's going to come across. In Mob Boss lingo that Rump speaks, that means Do it or Else. He demonstrates that even with people that cross him in the United States. So it or else.

Which is where the stupidity enters the debate. Words mean things, and not what Democrats decide they mean at the time. Now I know you've seen my multiple post of the definition of the word "favor" with the dictionary link of course.

Rational people define the word as it is in the dictionary. Leftists define the word in the way they see fit. You replied with a perfect example of that. Instead of the dictionary definition of favor, which is doing something out of good will, with no remuneration, the Democrats ignore all that, and claim what you just did: better do it or else; your military aid depends on it, and nothing of the sorts was ever said or hinted. How many times have the Democrats in the hearings used the word "demand?" There was never any demand.

Trump never asked for an investigation by Ukraine, he asked for a favor, which I defined above. A demand (also in the dictionary) is an ultimatum, and Trump never did that either. So what this impeachment is all about is the way Democrats are re-defining words. And again, remember, if Democrats can create new definition of words, so can Republicans.

I don't know, if a "consensus" of Democrats on the fly change the dictionary, I think it can retroactively convert acceptable conduct into an impeachable crime.

Democrats are constantly changing definitions and words. It's how they lie and get the sheep to believe them.

Trump said there are good people on both sides. Liberals: Trump said white supremacists are good people.

Trump proclaims himself as a Nationalist. Liberals: That's code word for white Nationalist.

Trump said Mexico is sending us murderers and rapists: Liberals: Trump said all Mexicans are murderers and rapists.

Trump said do me a favor. Liberals: Trump threatened US aid if Zelensky didn't meet his demands.

The media TOLD the Democrats to start calling it bribery because people don’t understand what quid pro quo means.

Then Pelosi and Schiff changed it to bribery.

Pelosi is such a hack.

Schiff is a starting up fucking criminal. He lied on the Congressional record about the phone call and he also said he saw concrete evidence of Russia collusion with Trump about the election.....funny, Mueller didn’t find it and Schiff never said what his “evidence” was...because there was none, because he was fucking lying.

Actually, some commie paper (Washington Post I believe) did a poll to find out which of the three words had the most impact. It was between quid pro quo, extortion, or bribery. The word bribery was picked overwhelmingly. So that's why the commies are using it.

Impeachment by focus group polling and they still fall miserably short of the support needed to remove a President in an election year? Sad!

 

[Zorro!]

The proper channel was for Rump to turn it over to the DOJ and have them open the investigation. Again, a President has tremendous power over countries through foreign aid. To even ask for a favor to have them "Look into a Political Rival" usually means, do it or else. You can word it any way you wish but that's how it's going to come across. In Mob Boss lingo that Rump speaks, that means Do it or Else. He demonstrates that even with people that cross him in the United States. So it or else.

Which is where the stupidity enters the debate. Words mean things, and not what Democrats decide they mean at the time. Now I know you've seen my multiple post of the definition of the word "favor" with the dictionary link of course.

Rational people define the word as it is in the dictionary. Leftists define the word in the way they see fit. You replied with a perfect example of that. Instead of the dictionary definition of favor, which is doing something out of good will, with no remuneration, the Democrats ignore all that, and claim what you just did: better do it or else; your military aid depends on it, and nothing of the sorts was ever said or hinted. How many times have the Democrats in the hearings used the word "demand?" There was never any demand.

Trump never asked for an investigation by Ukraine, he asked for a favor, which I defined above. A demand (also in the dictionary) is an ultimatum, and Trump never did that either. So what this impeachment is all about is the way Democrats are re-defining words. And again, remember, if Democrats can create new definition of words, so can Republicans.

I don't know, if a "consensus" of Democrats on the fly change the dictionary, I think it can retroactively convert acceptable conduct into an impeachable crime.

Democrats are constantly changing definitions and words. It's how they lie and get the sheep to believe them.

Trump said there are good people on both sides. Liberals: Trump said white supremacists are good people.

Trump proclaims himself as a Nationalist. Liberals: That's code word for white Nationalist.

Trump said Mexico is sending us murderers and rapists: Liberals: Trump said all Mexicans are murderers and rapists.

Trump said do me a favor. Liberals: Trump threatened US aid if Zelensky didn't meet his demands.

The media TOLD the Democrats to start calling it bribery because people don’t understand what quid pro quo means.

Then Pelosi and Schiff changed it to bribery.

Pelosi is such a hack.

Schiff is a starting up fucking criminal. He lied on the Congressional record about the phone call and he also said he saw concrete evidence of Russia collusion with Trump about the election.....funny, Mueller didn’t find it and Schiff never said what his “evidence” was...because there was none, because he was fucking lying.

No, bribery is one of only two specific crimes mentioned in the Constitution for impeachment. I don't think we knew what we had when only the phone call was known. Now we have a fuller picture and actions that took place by the state department.

EDIT: Or I should say Giuliani.

The Phone call gives you nothing and it undercuts Dems lies about what happened in the conversation.

 

[playtime]

morrison who took the transcript & hid it in the super secure vault, was asked several times why didn't he go to his superior with it first, thus rejecting proper protocol---he couldn't answer it.

Not quite. Morrison reported the call to White House lawyers - not because of the brazen, obvious corruption, but because it would be politically damaging if leaked. Upon his (and Vindman's) report of the call, the White House lawyers hid away the transcript. Morrison further testified that, when he looked for the transcript a day later, he couldn't find it. He then inquired about its whereabouts and was told, it was on a code-word protected server to which he had no access. Upon asking the White House lawyers why that was, he was allegedly told it was merely a clerical error.

The whining about "proper protocol" was aimed at Vindman, who reported the call to the lawyers without going to his superior (Morrison) first.

Morrison refuses to answer why he 'skipped' chain of command on reporting call
Rep. Val Demings, D-Florida, repeatedly questioned Morrison on why he chose to go directly to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg with his concerns about the July 25 phone call instead of reporting it up his chain of command to the deputy national security adviser Dr. Charlie Kupperman. Demings said if he felt there was nothing improper about the conversation, why did he "skip" his chain of command?

"I don't think I did skip my chain of command," Morrison said, saying that his relationship with Eisenberg was largely focused on "administrative matters" such as locking down the transcript.

Demings continued to press him, asking why he was so concerned about the legal adviser being aware of "this call that you saw nothing, basically, wrong with the substance or content of the call?"

Morrison said he was concerned because he didn't see a member of the legal office in the listening room on the call, and he wanted them to "be aware of what had transpired."
Impeachment hearing live: Morrison and Volker testify

he didn't skip chain of command, you didn't listen well. he went to his peer. you missed it obviously. The legal group wasn't on the call. he gave them the update. they were supposed to be on the call.

well, since vidman's peers are keeping his ass safe from those that could do harm to him & have some pretty good feelings about the dude - me thinx that court marshal ain't gonna happen. too bad so sad for you.

 

[playtime]

wrong.

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

(September 30, 2019) The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) processes complaints or information with respect to alleged urgent concerns in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) and the ICIG’s authorizing statute. With respect to the whistleblower complaint received by the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG processed and reviewed the complaint in accordance with the law.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

Perhaps you should have read a bit further, from your link. My B/U

The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respect to an “urgent concern,” which is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the 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.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant alleged information with respect to such an alleged urgent concern.

.

the WB went to congress with an urgent concern after his complaint was going to get buried. when he/she did that - they were then instructed to go to the IG.

And I just proved, the ICIG has no jurisdiction. So this so called WB isn't really a WB. is he? He has no claim to remain anonymous because he took his "concern" to the wrong place. My question now is, if Vidman violated the espionage act by reading in someone, about the call, who didn't have a need to know.

.

vidman is a spy? is that what you are saying???????????????????? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........................

dismissed.

Are you guys talking about Vindman? Let’s at least get the name right for the POS who leaked for political purposes rather than go up the chain of command.

Vindman is trash. Let him go be the Defense Minister of Ukraine.

lol... you = pathetic.

 

[ColonelAngus]

morrison who took the transcript & hid it in the super secure vault, was asked several times why didn't he go to his superior with it first, thus rejecting proper protocol---he couldn't answer it.

Not quite. Morrison reported the call to White House lawyers - not because of the brazen, obvious corruption, but because it would be politically damaging if leaked. Upon his (and Vindman's) report of the call, the White House lawyers hid away the transcript. Morrison further testified that, when he looked for the transcript a day later, he couldn't find it. He then inquired about its whereabouts and was told, it was on a code-word protected server to which he had no access. Upon asking the White House lawyers why that was, he was allegedly told it was merely a clerical error.

The whining about "proper protocol" was aimed at Vindman, who reported the call to the lawyers without going to his superior (Morrison) first.

Morrison refuses to answer why he 'skipped' chain of command on reporting call
Rep. Val Demings, D-Florida, repeatedly questioned Morrison on why he chose to go directly to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg with his concerns about the July 25 phone call instead of reporting it up his chain of command to the deputy national security adviser Dr. Charlie Kupperman. Demings said if he felt there was nothing improper about the conversation, why did he "skip" his chain of command?

"I don't think I did skip my chain of command," Morrison said, saying that his relationship with Eisenberg was largely focused on "administrative matters" such as locking down the transcript.

Demings continued to press him, asking why he was so concerned about the legal adviser being aware of "this call that you saw nothing, basically, wrong with the substance or content of the call?"

Morrison said he was concerned because he didn't see a member of the legal office in the listening room on the call, and he wanted them to "be aware of what had transpired."
Impeachment hearing live: Morrison and Volker testify

he didn't skip chain of command, you didn't listen well. he went to his peer. you missed it obviously. The legal group wasn't on the call. he gave them the update. they were supposed to be on the call.

well, since vidman's peers are keeping his ass safe from those that could do harm to him & have some pretty good feelings about the dude - me thinx that court marshal ain't gonna happen. too bad so sad for you.

And Trump isn’t leaving office...too bad so sad for you.

 

[Zorro!]

We can agree or disagree whether what Trump asked for was right or wrong, but one thing that it's not, is grounds for impeachment.

Since Trump has the right to ask anybody for anything, the commies are trying to attach the word "bribery" to it, as if Biden didn't do that when he was VP. But bribery involves personally getting something back, which Trump didn't do for himself or the country.

Polls are funny, because they always seem to favor the Democrats......that is up until a week before the election, then they start telling the truth so they can maintain credibility. In the meantime,they are designed to try and convince people how the political atmosphere is, instead of just telling us what it is.

So much like last time, you can hang your hat on the polls. As for myself, I'm convinced people are much happier today with Trump than they were before him.

The proper channel was for Rump to turn it over to the DOJ and have them open the investigation. Again, a President has tremendous power over countries through foreign aid. To even ask for a favor to have them "Look into a Political Rival" usually means, do it or else. You can word it any way you wish but that's how it's going to come across. In Mob Boss lingo that Rump speaks, that means Do it or Else. He demonstrates that even with people that cross him in the United States. So it or else.

Which is where the stupidity enters the debate. Words mean things, and not what Democrats decide they mean at the time. Now I know you've seen my multiple post of the definition of the word "favor" with the dictionary link of course.

Rational people define the word as it is in the dictionary. Leftists define the word in the way they see fit. You replied with a perfect example of that. Instead of the dictionary definition of favor, which is doing something out of good will, with no remuneration, the Democrats ignore all that, and claim what you just did: better do it or else; your military aid depends on it, and nothing of the sorts was ever said or hinted. How many times have the Democrats in the hearings used the word "demand?" There was never any demand.

Trump never asked for an investigation by Ukraine, he asked for a favor, which I defined above. A demand (also in the dictionary) is an ultimatum, and Trump never did that either. So what this impeachment is all about is the way Democrats are re-defining words. And again, remember, if Democrats can create new definition of words, so can Republicans.

I don't know, if a "consensus" of Democrats on the fly change the dictionary, I think it can retroactively convert acceptable conduct into an impeachable crime.

Democrats are constantly changing definitions and words. It's how they lie and get the sheep to believe them.

Trump said there are good people on both sides. Liberals: Trump said white supremacists are good people.

Trump proclaims himself as a Nationalist. Liberals: That's code word for white Nationalist.

Trump said Mexico is sending us murderers and rapists: Liberals: Trump said all Mexicans are murderers and rapists.

Trump said do me a favor. Liberals: Trump threatened US aid if Zelensky didn't meet his demands.

The media TOLD the Democrats to start calling it bribery because people don’t understand what quid pro quo means.

Then Pelosi and Schiff changed it to bribery.

Pelosi is such a hack.

Schiff is a straight up fucking criminal. He lied on the Congressional record about the phone call and he also said he saw concrete evidence of Russia collusion with Trump about the election.....funny, Mueller didn’t find it and Schiff never said what his “evidence” was...because there was none, because he was fucking lying.

He also tried to coordinate with the Ukrainians to get nude pictures of Trump, but, was being pranked by Radio Jocks. Apparently coordinating with foreign nationals is just dandy when Dems do it to attack Republicans.

 

[jc456]

morrison who took the transcript & hid it in the super secure vault, was asked several times why didn't he go to his superior with it first, thus rejecting proper protocol---he couldn't answer it.

Not quite. Morrison reported the call to White House lawyers - not because of the brazen, obvious corruption, but because it would be politically damaging if leaked. Upon his (and Vindman's) report of the call, the White House lawyers hid away the transcript. Morrison further testified that, when he looked for the transcript a day later, he couldn't find it. He then inquired about its whereabouts and was told, it was on a code-word protected server to which he had no access. Upon asking the White House lawyers why that was, he was allegedly told it was merely a clerical error.

The whining about "proper protocol" was aimed at Vindman, who reported the call to the lawyers without going to his superior (Morrison) first.

Morrison refuses to answer why he 'skipped' chain of command on reporting call
Rep. Val Demings, D-Florida, repeatedly questioned Morrison on why he chose to go directly to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg with his concerns about the July 25 phone call instead of reporting it up his chain of command to the deputy national security adviser Dr. Charlie Kupperman. Demings said if he felt there was nothing improper about the conversation, why did he "skip" his chain of command?

"I don't think I did skip my chain of command," Morrison said, saying that his relationship with Eisenberg was largely focused on "administrative matters" such as locking down the transcript.

Demings continued to press him, asking why he was so concerned about the legal adviser being aware of "this call that you saw nothing, basically, wrong with the substance or content of the call?"

Morrison said he was concerned because he didn't see a member of the legal office in the listening room on the call, and he wanted them to "be aware of what had transpired."
Impeachment hearing live: Morrison and Volker testify

he didn't skip chain of command, you didn't listen well. he went to his peer. you missed it obviously. The legal group wasn't on the call. he gave them the update. they were supposed to be on the call.

well, since vidman's peers are keeping his ass safe from those that could do harm to him & have some pretty good feelings about the dude - me thinx that court marshal ain't gonna happen. too bad so sad for you.

we'll see. it is grounds for one. Especially when he admitted it. that is a violation. the military doesn't take kindly to that.