Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Except we don't really know it's him.www.citizenfreepress.com ^ | February 4, 2020 12:36 pm | Kane
Fantastic Video — Rand Paul Takes Revenge On Democrat Coup Plot
This just unfolded on Senate floor in the past 30 minutes… Shitte has a heart attack!!! ROTFLMFAO
So it's just Paul making a lot of meaningless noise as usual.
Ciaramella? He was a plant. Alternate plan if Mueller failed.what does it say further down that i c/p & underlined?
I see. So your claim is that the so-called whistleblower had first hand knowledge? That's a lot different than all the reporting of this story. So what we really needed was the whistleblower to testify under oath to Congress that he indeed had this first hand knowledge.
i'm not claiming anything. it's in the report.
Then I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying that direct knowledge is first hand information? Because if it is, then the WB had to check that box that stated he did. That would mean either all the reporting is wrong, or that the WB lied on his application.
Now if direct knowledge is not the same as first hand information, as outlined in the first paragraph of page two, then he still isn't considered a whistleblower by definition.
So which are you claiming here?
i am not claiming anything other than what is in the report. the ICIG deemed him a WB.
The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.
In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.
This is not what we are debating. It has nothing to do whether his complaint is credible or not. There is a transcript of the phone call. What's being debated here is if this person is an actual whistleblower by definition. Apparently he is not. A report filed under the whistleblower statue has to have first hand knowledge. He had second hand knowledge. Now, that doesn't preclude him from filing the complaint, but he can't file it as a whistleblower.
I see. So your claim is that the so-called whistleblower had first hand knowledge? That's a lot different than all the reporting of this story. So what we really needed was the whistleblower to testify under oath to Congress that he indeed had this first hand knowledge.
i'm not claiming anything. it's in the report.
Then I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying that direct knowledge is first hand information? Because if it is, then the WB had to check that box that stated he did. That would mean either all the reporting is wrong, or that the WB lied on his application.
Now if direct knowledge is not the same as first hand information, as outlined in the first paragraph of page two, then he still isn't considered a whistleblower by definition.
So which are you claiming here?
i am not claiming anything other than what is in the report. the ICIG deemed him a WB.
The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.
In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.
This is not what we are debating. It has nothing to do whether his complaint is credible or not. There is a transcript of the phone call. What's being debated here is if this person is an actual whistleblower by definition. Apparently he is not. A report filed under the whistleblower statue has to have first hand knowledge. He had second hand knowledge. Now, that doesn't preclude him from filing the complaint, but he can't file it as a whistleblower.
the ICIG says otherwise.
I posted the link.. so you don’t think schiff’s staff didn’t talk to Eric ?There is evidence that he was talking impeachment with schiffs staff.. he is an unnamed operative.. well not today lolWhy?
Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.
You guys are just nuts.
Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?
What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.
He never saw anything wrong occur, he simply repeated a version of something someone told him. The fact that the FBI had already lied and falsified information to get warrants previously in the Russian Collussion investigation, warrants looking into the actions of all these people.
There also needs to be checks and balances on a certain segment of the intel-community that has been trying to take down a sitting president from the very beginning. When a President can be taken down by an unknown CIA operative based on second hand info, you have entered into a Soviet style of governing.
Except the President isn't being "taken down" by an unknown operative.
He reported, legally, what he had heard. The checks and balances lie in the IG who checks to make sure it is credible, not just malicious. If it is deemed credible, by law it must go to Congress to handle. There is nothing nefarious - the checks and balances are right there.
What you seem to be saying is that - despite the fact that what he reported has been independently corroborated - he shouldn't have done it.
So essentially - you are not allow to report on any wrong doing by the President if you are a whistle blower?
What evidence?
^there ya go^Ciaramella? He was a plant. Alternate plan if Mueller failed.
So do you agree we have enough to investigate?Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.Left wing opinion site? I Prefer factsThere is evidence that he was talking impeachment with schiffs staff.. he is an unnamed operative.. well not today lol
PolitiFact |
you prefer a bloated draft dodging oxy addicted hypocrite.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.
Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!
why not investigate?Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.Left wing opinion site? I Prefer factsThere is evidence that he was talking impeachment with schiffs staff.. he is an unnamed operative.. well not today lol
PolitiFact |
you prefer a bloated draft dodging oxy addicted hypocrite.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.
Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!
why not investigate?
Sketchy? No stretching is more like it.
Got a source for that? And how specifically does it invalidate the report that has been independently substantiated?
That's the tricky part. The only way you seem to be able to fix it is with conspiracy theory.
what does it say further down that i c/p & underlined?
I see. So your claim is that the so-called whistleblower had first hand knowledge? That's a lot different than all the reporting of this story. So what we really needed was the whistleblower to testify under oath to Congress that he indeed had this first hand knowledge.
i'm not claiming anything. it's in the report.
Then I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying that direct knowledge is first hand information? Because if it is, then the WB had to check that box that stated he did. That would mean either all the reporting is wrong, or that the WB lied on his application.
Now if direct knowledge is not the same as first hand information, as outlined in the first paragraph of page two, then he still isn't considered a whistleblower by definition.
So which are you claiming here?
i am not claiming anything other than what is in the report. the ICIG deemed him a WB.
The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.
In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.
This is not what we are debating. It has nothing to do whether his complaint is credible or not. There is a transcript of the phone call. What's being debated here is if this person is an actual whistleblower by definition. Apparently he is not. A report filed under the whistleblower statue has to have first hand knowledge. He had second hand knowledge. Now, that doesn't preclude him from filing the complaint, but he can't file it as a whistleblower.
www.citizenfreepress.com ^ | February 4, 2020 12:36 pm | Kane
Fantastic Video — Rand Paul Takes Revenge On Democrat Coup Plot
This just unfolded on Senate floor in the past 30 minutes… Shitte has a heart attack!!! ROTFLMFAO
So are you ok with a investigation?Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.Left wing opinion site? I Prefer factsThere is evidence that he was talking impeachment with schiffs staff.. he is an unnamed operative.. well not today lol
PolitiFact |
you prefer a bloated draft dodging oxy addicted hypocrite.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.
Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!
why not investigate?
a trump appointee. d'oh!
i'm not claiming anything. it's in the report.
Then I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying that direct knowledge is first hand information? Because if it is, then the WB had to check that box that stated he did. That would mean either all the reporting is wrong, or that the WB lied on his application.
Now if direct knowledge is not the same as first hand information, as outlined in the first paragraph of page two, then he still isn't considered a whistleblower by definition.
So which are you claiming here?
i am not claiming anything other than what is in the report. the ICIG deemed him a WB.
The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.
In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.
This is not what we are debating. It has nothing to do whether his complaint is credible or not. There is a transcript of the phone call. What's being debated here is if this person is an actual whistleblower by definition. Apparently he is not. A report filed under the whistleblower statue has to have first hand knowledge. He had second hand knowledge. Now, that doesn't preclude him from filing the complaint, but he can't file it as a whistleblower.
the ICIG says otherwise.
How can he say otherwise when the complainant doesn't fit the criteria of a whistleblower?
I didn't ask that. for your opinion cuz of the dangers you feel are involved...btw, to my knowledge, no one has yet offically identified this guy [Ciarmella [sp]] as the whistleblower...Paul put the name out there and for some reason folks are coming to his defense.I don't think there is any restriction on the media. Just on who tells the media.
They could have just as easily been protecting am innocent man.Except we don't really know it's him.www.citizenfreepress.com ^ | February 4, 2020 12:36 pm | Kane
Fantastic Video — Rand Paul Takes Revenge On Democrat Coup Plot
This just unfolded on Senate floor in the past 30 minutes… Shitte has a heart attack!!! ROTFLMFAO
So it's just Paul making a lot of meaningless noise as usual.
We know it's him, but don't have an admission from him. Both Schiff Face and Roberts stopped questioning when his name was brought up. In this trial, you aren't even allowed to mention his name (for some strange reason) so it's pretty apparent who he is since dozens of other names were mentioned with no objection from Schiff or Roberts.
lol...from your link:There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge]
I see. So your claim is that the so-called whistleblower had first hand knowledge? That's a lot different than all the reporting of this story. So what we really needed was the whistleblower to testify under oath to Congress that he indeed had this first hand knowledge.
i'm not claiming anything. it's in the report.
Then I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying that direct knowledge is first hand information? Because if it is, then the WB had to check that box that stated he did. That would mean either all the reporting is wrong, or that the WB lied on his application.
Now if direct knowledge is not the same as first hand information, as outlined in the first paragraph of page two, then he still isn't considered a whistleblower by definition.
So which are you claiming here?
i am not claiming anything other than what is in the report. the ICIG deemed him a WB.
The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.
In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.
This is not what we are debating. It has nothing to do whether his complaint is credible or not. There is a transcript of the phone call. What's being debated here is if this person is an actual whistleblower by definition. Apparently he is not. A report filed under the whistleblower statue has to have first hand knowledge. He had second hand knowledge. Now, that doesn't preclude him from filing the complaint, but he can't file it as a whistleblower.
There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
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
There ya have it, "enough with all this proof crap"...the legal process has been satisfied because white liberals say it has.People aren't coming to HIS defense, they are opposing the release of the whistleblowers identity. It might be him, it might not. Enough with the games. The report stands on it's own merit.
lol...from your link:There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge]
The good news is that ray owes you a great big thank you
So deranged fuckwads like you don't threaten him & his family you piece of shit.Why?A very wrong thing to do.
They could have just as easily been protecting am innocent man.Except we don't really know it's him.www.citizenfreepress.com ^ | February 4, 2020 12:36 pm | Kane
Fantastic Video — Rand Paul Takes Revenge On Democrat Coup Plot
This just unfolded on Senate floor in the past 30 minutes… Shitte has a heart attack!!! ROTFLMFAO
So it's just Paul making a lot of meaningless noise as usual.
We know it's him, but don't have an admission from him. Both Schiff Face and Roberts stopped questioning when his name was brought up. In this trial, you aren't even allowed to mention his name (for some strange reason) so it's pretty apparent who he is since dozens of other names were mentioned with no objection from Schiff or Roberts.
Non answer.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here because that reads like you are backing up my/rays claim, if so please allow me time to re-evaluate my position.Dejas Vous and here we go again.
Let's simplify it down. What does it say?
The IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.
It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.
What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.
