Things Become Clearer, Adam Schiff Is A Scumbag

So Schiff knew about the complaint and didn't report it. Meanwhile, the CIA changes its rules about whistleblower complaints needing to be first hand.


Oh yeah, this is all trumped up (pun intended). It's nothing. It's not real. But they are going to run with it to try and rid themselves of Trump because they can't win on ideas.

Comments

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230

    I am wondering if another word could have been used instead of "s....". Check the name-calling. We can do better, Mr. Reformed. CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    So Schiff knew about the complaint and didn't report it.

    Because facts matter:

    Since you undoubtedly read the entire New York Times report on which the TownHall article is based, you know the following:

    • "The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague."
    • "The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said."
    • "In response to questions, spokeswomen for Senators Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Mark Warner of Virginia, its Democratic vice chairman, said it was standard procedure to refer whistle-blowers to the relevant inspectors general."
    • "Contacts in the National Security Council had also told the C.I.A. officer that the White House lawyers had authorized records of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky to be put in a highly classified computer system, meaning that the lawyers who were now helping the C.I.A. investigate the officer’s allegations were the same ones implicated in them. The officer has alleged that White House aides’ decision to store the call records more restrictively was itself an abuse of the system."
    • "The C.I.A. officer decided the complaint he had brought to Ms. Elwood was at risk of being swept aside, prompting him to go to the lawmakers who conduct oversight of the intelligence agencies....He followed the advice of Mr. Schiff’s aide and filed his complaint to Mr. Atkinson. And though Mr. Maguire blocked him from forwarding it to Congress, he did allow Mr. Atkinson to notify lawmakers of its existence."

    Tell me ONE THING the Intelligence Committee staffer, the whistleblower, or Chairman Schiff did that was wrong? The whistelblower had good reason to believe that some of the people reviewing his initial complaint were participants in the actions he was reporting! He also had good reason to believe the White House was secreting away evidence of what he believed was bad conduct. What was wrong about going to a congressional Intelligence Committee? And what was wrong with the IC's staffer advising the whistelblower to lawyer up and go to his inspector general, per the committee's procedures? And what was wrong with the IC staffer passing along to the Committee chair the "vague" outline of the complaint he had received? The answer to all of those questions is "nothing."

    As for Schiff's not reporting the complaint, it wasn't his job to do so. 1) It wasn't a formal complaint yet - he knew only vaguely what that CIA officer was alleging; 2) his staffer followed committee procedures when he directed the officer to the appropriate outlet for his concerns. The committee and its chair handled the matter correctly.

    Facts matter.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    One thing? Sure. The Whistle Blower did not follow protocol.

    How specifically did the whistleblower not follow protocol? Both congressional intel committees have procedures and practices to direct potential whistleblowers to inspectors general, which means they obviously think it's possible that people will come to them with possible complaints before going to an IG. Are you saying it was illegal for the CIA officer to go to the House Intel committee when he believed his initial offering might be mishandled? If it wasn't illegal, I can't imagine that you'd care! 😛

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    You asked what they did that was wrong. The Whistleblower went to Congress before the IG. Why they thought that was appropriate I do not know.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    You asked what they did that was wrong. The Whistleblower went to Congress before the IG. Why they thought that was appropriate I do not know.


    Why was it "wrong" to go to Congress first? What was the harm? If I go to a store's customer service desk to pick up my ship-to-store online order, when I should have gone to the store's online order pick up station, I didn't go to the correct place, true, but so what? There's no harm done by my going to the customer service desk first, and they will surely direct me to the place I need to go. The end result will be the same: I will get my order.

    Similarly, there was no harm in the CIA officer going to a congressional intel committee before the IG. It's not as if he went to the Agriculture Committee or the House's public relations office!

    So the best you can do to object to what happened is to object to the fact that an intelligence professional went to a congressional intelligence committee before he/she went to an IG, even though that intelligence committee directed him/her to an IG, direction the intelligence professional followed, and the only thing the Intel committee seems to have done with the "vague" word they received about the complaint was to take action when the time frame during which they should have received a copy of the complaint from the IG passed without their getting one. That's NOT a strong objection.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    You asked for ONE THING they did wrong. They didn't follow protocol. End of story. That was one thing they did wrong. You didn't ask about harms. You asked about one thing they did wrong.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774
    edited October 4

    @reformed posted:

    You asked for ONE THING they did wrong. They didn't follow protocol. End of story. That was one thing they did wrong. You didn't ask about harms. You asked about one thing they did wrong.

    And so it's true that the best you can do to criticize the receipt and handling of the whistleblower's complaint is to say the whistleblower went to a congressional intelligence committee before he went to the ICIG... whom he went to as soon as encouraged to do so by an intelligence committee staffer.... Your call, of course, but given that meager tidbit of criticism, it's hard to imagine why you decided to launch this thread, having only THAT objection as support for your thread's title's accusation that "Schiff is a scumbag."

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Oh no, I think it's wrong that Schiff sat on the info for over a month without even mentioning it. I think it is wrong that the IC conveniently changed their criteria for whistleblower's after the fact. There are many wrong things, but you just asked for one.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774


    @reformed posted:

    Oh no, I think it's wrong that Schiff sat on the info for over a month without even mentioning it.

    Curiously, your post fails to mention that Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Republican Richard Burr, received the complaint the same day as Schiff did, and he too "sat on the info for over a month without even mentioning it." Do you level the same critique of Burr's actions as you do of Schiff's?

    You probably shouldn't, given that the timeline of events makes clear that the ICIG didn't rule on the complaint's urgency or credibility until August 26, two weeks after the chairs received the complaint, and at that time, didn't contact Schiff, but rather Acting DNI Maguire. The ICIG didn't correspond with Schiff until September 9, at which time he reported the DNI's refusal to "forward the complaint to Congress."

    So why did Schiff and Burr "(sit) on the info for over a month without even mentioning it"? Because they were waiting for the ICIG and Acting DNI to process the complaint in accordance with the law. When Schiff learned the complaint would not be forwarded to Congress, he began to "mention" it.



    I think it is wrong that the IC conveniently changed their criteria for whistleblower's after the fact.

    Not true. Another right wing talking point/conspiracy theory. As factcheck.org reports in its thorough review of the matter, there was NO change in the criteria "after the fact." What happened was that in reviewing its forms, the IG's office discovered content in one of the forms that could incorrectly be interpreted to mean that complainants needed first-hand knowledge. Since by law complainants DO NOT need first hand knowledge to file complaints, they removed that language from the form. Here are the two relevant paragraphs from the IG's public statement:

    "In 2018, the ICIG formed a new Center for Protected Disclosures, which has as one of its primary functions to process complaints from whistleblowers under the ICWPA. In early 2019, the ICIG hired a new Hotline Program Manager as part of the Center for Protected Disclosures to oversee the ICIG’s Hotline. In June 2019, the newly hired Director for the Center for Protected Disclosures entered on duty. Thus, the Center for Protected Disclosures has been reviewing the forms provided to whistleblowers who wish to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees. In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.  

    "The ICIG’s Center for Protected Disclosures has developed three new forms entitled, “Report of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse UNCLASSIFIED Intake Form”; “Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form-UNCLASSIFIED”; and “External Review Panel (ERP) Request Form – UNCLASSIFIED.” These three new forms are now available on the ICIG’s open website and are in the process of being added to the ICIG’s classified system. The ICIG will continue to update and clarify its forms and its websites to ensure its guidance to whistleblowers is clear and strictly complies with statutory requirements. Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern."


    In short, the law NEVER changed, but the forms did because they gave the wrong impression as to what the law required.... And it's worth noting, as the IG did in his statement, "[t]he 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.”

    So this particular whistleblower HAD first-hand information about some of the incidents he or she reported.


    Facts STILL matter.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Facts do matter. Here's the facts. The whistleblower is hearsay and was proved false by the transcript. End of story. And if the Democrats really think it is impeachable, why not bring it to a vote?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,097

    The totally false story hyped by the US media was contradicted in whole by the released unredacted official transcript of the alleged impeachable telephone call.

    Did you know this? If not, why? Here is the RT report:

     https://www.rt.com/usa/470078-whistleblower-schiff-trump-complaint-scandal/

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774


    @reformed posted:

    Facts do matter. Here's the facts. The whistleblower is hearsay and was proved false by the transcript. End of story.

    Did you not read the quotation from ICIG's statement I included in my last post? Here it is again:

    "The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxesThe first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”

    That means the whistleblower's complaint included MORE than "hearsay." End of story.


    The other, more important fact is that the factual assertions of the whistleblower's complaint have been confirmed again and again and again. (compare the complaint's rendering of the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call with the summary the White House released. Uncanny accuracy, in NO WAY possible by coincidence or happenstance) A fact is a fact, whether it comes first-hand, second-hand, or no-hand. PLUS, as I noted, the LAW doesn't require first-hand witnesses.



    And if the Democrats really think it is impeachable, why not bring it to a vote?

    The Constitution doesn't require a vote to authorize impeachment.

    I'm guessing the speaker is protecting a small number of purple district caucus members from having to go on the record. As the news continues to prove the president's abject corruption, I think such a vote becomes more and more likely. Popular opinion has moved dramatically in the last two weeks, and the news seems to get worse, not better, for the president.

    I can't imagine there aren't a couple of handfuls of GOP House members who don't want to go on the record about an impeachment inquiry either.

    As far as I'm concerned, take the vote, Nancy!



    You didn't mention either your complaint about Schiff's holding onto the complaint without taking action, or your charge of a change in the criteria for filing complaints. Does your silence in response to the facts I provided in my last post serve as your acknowledgement that neither of your charges had merit?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @Wolfgang posted:

    The totally false story hyped by the US media was contradicted in whole by the released unredacted official transcript of the alleged impeachable telephone call.

    The RT story to which you link makes NO MENTION of "the released unredacted official transcript." In fact, a "CAUTION" at the bottom of the first page of the summary released by the White House made clear that the document was NOT a verbatim transcript:"

    "A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned t_o listen.and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A numper of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indifate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear."


    The RT story, in addition to getting some basic facts wrong (such as its false contention that the whistleblower's "original accusation was 'vague.'" What was "vague" was only the whistleblower's depiction of his or her complaint to a intelligence committee staffer before he or she went to the ICIG at the recommendation of the staffer) says nothing that our "presstitutes" (you've stopped using that wonderful word, Wolfgang!) haven't already reported.


    As for your claim that the "unredacted official transcript" of the call "contradicted in whole" the interpretation of the call given by me and other critics of the president's actions, you're entitled to your opinion. I strongly disagree with your view. And as news on the president's actions continues to break, so do the facts.

Sign In or Register to comment.