Miller is a pox on the White House.Ivytalk wrote:I’m already bored by the whole Trump-Ukie fiasco. What has been made abundantly clear to me in the past week is that Stephen Miller is an Uber-creep who is probably a direct descendant of Joseph Goebbels. Which is a neat trick for a Jewish guy.
Trumps Attorney (who happens to double as the US AG) has been flying around trying to dig up dirt to use against our own intelligence and law enforcement agencies for investigating the 2016 election. They’re probably all guilty of treason just like Schiff and the whistleblower.Ibanez wrote:Miller is a pox on the White House.Ivytalk wrote:I’m already bored by the whole Trump-Ukie fiasco. What has been made abundantly clear to me in the past week is that Stephen Miller is an Uber-creep who is probably a direct descendant of Joseph Goebbels. Which is a neat trick for a Jewish guy.
I’ve been in/out of meetings, what’s this news about Trump pressuring the Aussies to do something with Mueller?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fake news. What’s Fox say about this?kalm wrote:Trumps Attorney (who happens to double as the US AG) has been flying around trying to dig up dirt to use against our own intelligence and law enforcement agencies for investigating the 2016 election. They’re probably all guilty of treason just like Schiff and the whistleblower.Ibanez wrote: Miller is a pox on the White House.
I’ve been in/out of meetings, what’s this news about Trump pressuring the Aussies to do something with Mueller?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... DsQZ2pJ1qa
Perfect!Chizzang wrote:The past 48 hrs every Democrat has been acting like this...
WaPo was wrong about collusion and Fox was right.Ibanez wrote:Fake news. What’s Fox say about this?kalm wrote:
Trumps Attorney (who happens to double as the US AG) has been flying around trying to dig up dirt to use against our own intelligence and law enforcement agencies for investigating the 2016 election. They’re probably all guilty of treason just like Schiff and the whistleblower.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... DsQZ2pJ1qa
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 9886426780The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is
the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before
Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the
Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether
the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging
the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant
– or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect
to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand
information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The
ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since
Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a
whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.
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.”
Which one? That his knowledge of the Ukraine call was secondhand?Skjellyfetti wrote:Another Right Wing talking point that has been making the rounds swatted down by the ICIG
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 9886426780The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is
the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before
Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the
Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether
the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging
the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant
– or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect
to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand
information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The
ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since
Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a
whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.
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.”
Wow. I feel good about correctly reading the statute before I posted that first hand knowledge is not required by the statute.Skjellyfetti wrote:Another Right Wing talking point that has been making the rounds swatted down by the ICIG
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 9886426780The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is
the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before
Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the
Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether
the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging
the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant
– or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect
to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand
information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The
ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since
Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a
whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.
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.”
We already know Biden didn't do anything illegal.AZGrizFan wrote:Agreed. Add Clinton and Biden to the “investigation” list and I’m all for it.kalm wrote:
Doesn’t matter. If it’s illegal it should be investigated, right?
Hmmm. Semms like lifelong Republican and Trump appointee is a back stabber. Told ya!Skjellyfetti wrote:Do you love the "Trump appointee" bologna? Or too salty?
Richard Engel tweeted that earlier from Russia (with love).JohnStOnge wrote:We already know Biden didn't do anything illegal.AZGrizFan wrote:
Agreed. Add Clinton and Biden to the “investigation” list and I’m all for it.
You're absolutely positive that Biden didn't do anything illegal? Ever?JohnStOnge wrote:We already know Biden didn't do anything illegal.AZGrizFan wrote:
Agreed. Add Clinton and Biden to the “investigation” list and I’m all for it.
He saw nothing wrong with the black Israelites in the Covington Catholic brouhaha either.UNI88 wrote:You're absolutely positive that Biden didn't do anything illegal? Ever?JohnStOnge wrote:
We already know Biden didn't do anything illegal.
I do love how you give Biden, the Clinton's etc. the benefit of the doubt if there are no charges filed but any whiff of scandal around Trump and he's automatically guilty. Any rational person knows that he's a sociopathic scumbag who is too vain to properly cover his tracks.
Ooh. 1 example. That doesn’t make one better or more reliable than another.SeattleGriz wrote:WaPo was wrong about collusion and Fox was right.Ibanez wrote: Fake news. What’s Fox say about this?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just saying.
Wow. Anyone who speaks up is a back stabber?SeattleGriz wrote:Hmmm. Semms like lifelong Republican and Trump appointee is a back stabber. Told ya!Skjellyfetti wrote:Do you love the "Trump appointee" bologna? Or too salty?
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/30/to ... wer-rules/
You're missing the context. Skelly used the qualifier of the ICIG being a lifelong Republican and Trump appointee as some sort of shield to protect him from criticism a couple days ago.Ibanez wrote:Wow. Anyone who speaks up is a back stabber?SeattleGriz wrote:
Hmmm. Semms like lifelong Republican and Trump appointee is a back stabber. Told ya!
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/30/to ... wer-rules/
I wonder if you’d feel the same if this were a Democrat. I’m sure you would. You conservatives have such unwavering principles.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why should it be viewed your way? Let’s take things at face value- Trump and the White House have corroborated what the whistle blower has said. Plus the IG has said that the whistle blower is a SME with first hand information that had been corroborated during the review of the complaint.SeattleGriz wrote:You're missing the context. Skelly used the qualifier of the ICIG being a lifelong Republican and Trump appointee as some sort of shield to protect him from criticism a couple days ago.Ibanez wrote:
Wow. Anyone who speaks up is a back stabber?
I wonder if you’d feel the same if this were a Democrat. I’m sure you would. You conservatives have such unwavering principles.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I told him he was looking at it wrong. He should be looking at it via political class vs people and Trump isn't in their class, and what do you know, he seems to have helped hearsay become the new norm for whistleblowers.
No one has to view it my way, but by the same token, trying to label someone as beyond reproach just because they happen to have been appointed by Trump, makes no sense either.Ibanez wrote:Why should it be viewed your way? Let’s take things at face value- Trump and the White House have corroborated what the whistle blower has said. Plus the IG has said that the whistle blower is a SME with first hand information that had been corroborated during the review of the complaint.SeattleGriz wrote:
You're missing the context. Skelly used the qualifier of the ICIG being a lifelong Republican and Trump appointee as some sort of shield to protect him from criticism a couple days ago.
I told him he was looking at it wrong. He should be looking at it via political class vs people and Trump isn't in their class, and what do you know, he seems to have helped hearsay become the new norm for whistleblowers.
So whats your problem- that someone has stood up and said something was wrong or that Trump admitted to it?
If y’all are like Graham or Jordan - then it’s clear you want to attack the source.
There are a lot of people in this thread acting like they have first hand knowledge of Biden and Trump when in reality they only have political spin.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would say he probably had a limited amount of choices. He only has so many in his own pool to draw upon. Look at Jeff Sessions.Skjellyfetti wrote:I didn't say he was beyond reproach.
The fact that he was appointed by Trump means Trump had the decision to give him the job or not. I guess he liked what he saw? Or no? A Deep Stater in the White House tricked him?