The Complaint

[transporter]

Since none of you will bother to make the effort to read it yourselves and will only rely on the propaganda postings of comrade GURPS, here is a link to the actual "whistleblower complaint".

None of you will click on it of course. None of you will read it. Which is just a further indictment of your cultlike mentalities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-whistleblower-complaint-regarding-president-trump-s-communications-with-ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelensky/4b9e0ca5-3824-467f-b1a3-77f2d4ee16aa/

If linking to the Wapo is just toooo scandalous for you here are others:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf

 

[Ken King]

Let's look at the following statement of the complaint trying to justify the furtherance of the hearsay and the OPINION of the complainant as to the credibility of what he allegedly overheard or was told as it is freely admitted that there is no claim of direct knowledge of the event.

"consistent with the definition of "urgent concern" in 50 USC 3033(k)(5)(G)"

In this paragraph, the term “urgent concern” means any of the following:
(i) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.

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

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

Note that the complaint does not show where any of the allegation falls within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence, in fact the complainant specifically leaves that out to make it seem like he "whistle-blew" to the appropriate authority.

 

[Yooper]

Since none of you will bother to make the effort to read it yourselves

Poor assumption on your part. I have read the complaint and I feel pretty certain others here on the forum have as well.

So it's not so much a "failure to read" as an understanding that this is still a #nothingburger; the result of personal animus and/or political gamesmanship where that animus/political gamesmanship is worded "regally" to make it sound important. Can't help but wonder who helped the complainant write the letter....

I also wonder if the complainant first went to his/her/xer supervisors. Granted, to lodge an IG complaint it's not required, but it does cause the investigator pause (for a number of reasons; one of which is the IG complaint system is quite frequently used as a weapon by the disgruntled).

Speaking of an IG complaint, the complainant could have just as easily lodged one apart from claiming whistleblower status, but at this point it seems (s)(x)he didn't. Why, I wonder? Could it be that a) it wouldn't have gotten the press it did (no doubt, one of the main objectives of the exercise), b) makes the complaint seem more important than it actually is, and c) protects this douchebag? Could it be because the complaint has no merit and that in this case "whistleblower status is the last refuge of a scoundrel"?

Why do I name this "person" a "douchebag"? Because if this is a big deal, then the entirety of the IC - nay, every government official, Federal on down - belongs in jail. Compared to some of the cases I worked on in an IC IG office* this is so ridiculously a #nothingburger as to merit nothing more from anyone than a) dismissal and derision and b) recognition that it is nothing more than a politically-motivated attempt at a smear.

So feel free, you anti-Trumpers, to continue to live in the house of mirrors that is your #TDS.... And while y'all are busy burning down the house that is this Republic I hope you will pause from your match play to understand the sad reality two can play this game and that some will probably want to/will.... That's the sad state of affairs y'all have put us in. Hope you're happy.

*Wish I could relate some of the cases I worked on or was read-in on in order to provide insight and perspective. Unfortunately, I am bound by a life-long NDA.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Let's look at the following statement of the complaint trying to justify the furtherance of the hearsay and the OPINION of the complainant as to the credibility of what he allegedly overheard or was told as it is freely admitted that there is no claim of direct knowledge of the event.

"consistent with the definition of "urgent concern" in 50 USC 3033(k)(5)(G)"


Note that the complaint does not show where any of the allegation falls within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence, in fact the complainant specifically leaves that out to make it seem like he "whistle-blew" to the appropriate authority.

Which is why acting DNI said it didn't meet the definition of urgent concern.

The whistleblower appears to have followed procedure. If you believe reports,

Following the procedure outlined in the law, the whistleblower notified the inspector general for the director of national intelligence (DNI), Michael Atkinson on Aug. 12. Atkinson said in a Sept. 9 letter to Congress

Atkinson determined there were reasonable grounds to believe that the complaint was credible. Following procedure, he sent the information on Aug. 26 to the acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire.

The law gives Maguire seven days to forward the complaint to the House and Senate intelligence committees. Instead, Maguire’s office informed Atkinson that the complaint didn’t meet the definition of an “urgent concern.” Atkinson said he was also told the complaint didn’t have to be acted on because it does not involve allegations about a member of the intelligence community or intelligence activity. Atkinson disagreed with that conclusion but said he is bound by it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...wers-complaint-heres-what-we-know/2444980001/

The week after the call, the officer delivered a somewhat broad accusation anonymously to the C.I.A.’s general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, according to multiple people familiar with the events. The initial allegations reported only that serious questions existed about a phone call between Mr. Trump and a foreign leader.

As required by government policy, Ms. Elwood had to assess whether a “reasonable basis” for the accusation existed. During the preliminary inquiry, Ms. Elwood and a career C.I.A. lawyer learned that multiple people had raised concerns about Mr. Trump’s call.

Ms. Elwood also called John A. Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and her counterpart at the National Security Council, according to three people familiar with the matter. He was already aware of vague concerns about the call.

They decided that the accusations had a reasonable basis.

But as White House, C.I.A. and Justice Department officials were examining the accusations, the C.I.A. officer who had lodged them anonymously grew concerned after learning that Ms. Elwood had contacted the White House, according to two people familiar with the matter. While it is not clear how the officer became aware that Ms. Elwood had shared the information, he concluded that the C.I.A. was not taking his allegations seriously.

That played a factor in his decision to become a whistle-blower, they said. And about two weeks after first submitting his anonymous accusations, he decided to file a whistle-blower complaint to Mr. Atkinson, a step that offers special legal protections, unlike going to a general counsel.

At the end of August, the office of the director of national intelligence referred the allegations to the Justice Department as a possible criminal matter. Law enforcement officials ultimately declined to open an investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/...1a971cc896fe10ac5461&regi_id=73626606ing-news

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Poor assumption on your part. I have read the complaint and I feel pretty certain others here on the forum have as well.

So it's not so much a "failure to read" as an understanding that this is still a #nothingburger; the result of personal animus and/or political gamesmanship where that animus/political gamesmanship is worded "regally" to make it sound important. Can't help but wonder who helped the complainant write the letter....

The whistleblower has counsel. Perhaps they wrote it. Perhaps the guy really is a CIA agent and has experience "regally" typing things?

Regardless. Is that really something to complain about or something that leads you to automatically toss the complaint? That it was written too nice?

I also wonder if the complainant first went to his/her/xer supervisors. Granted, to lodge an IG complaint it's not required, but it does cause the investigator pause (for a number of reasons; one of which is the IG complaint system is quite frequently used as a weapon by the disgruntled).

If you believe the reports, they did go to their supervisors. According to the NYT, he lodged an anonymous compliant with CIA's general counsel. After that got bounced around the CIA, White House, and DoJ, the whistleblower felt it wasn't being taken seriously and went on to file a whistleblower complaint which offered special legal protections going to CIA general counsel does not.

It's telling that the former executive director of the intelligence community whistle-blowing program said “I always advise whistle-blowers against going to general counsels because the general counsels have to report the matter”.

Speaking of an IG complaint, the complainant could have just as easily lodged one apart from claiming whistleblower status, but at this point it seems (s)(x)he didn't. Why, I wonder? Could it be that a) it wouldn't have gotten the press it did (no doubt, one of the main objectives of the exercise), b) makes the complaint seem more important than it actually is, and c) protects this douchebag? Could it be because the complaint has no merit and that in this case "whistleblower status is the last refuge of a scoundrel"?

See above.

Why do I name this "person" a "douchebag"? Because if this is a big deal, then the entirety of the IC - nay, every government official, Federal on down - belongs in jail. Compared to some of the cases I worked on in an IC IG office* this is so ridiculously a #nothingburger as to merit nothing more from anyone than a) dismissal and derision and b) recognition that it is nothing more than a politically-motivated attempt at a smear.

Maybe it is nothing. But would tyou agree that something this serious should be looked into and not glanced over as a "#nothingburger" simply because you or others don't like the means the person did this, or how well the complaint was typed up.

So feel free, you anti-Trumpers, to continue to live in the house of mirrors that is your #TDS.... And while y'all are busy burning down the house that is this Republic I hope you will pause from your match play to understand the sad reality two can play this game and that some will probably want to/will.... That's the sad state of affairs y'all have put us in. Hope you're happy.

*Wish I could relate some of the cases I worked on or was read-in on in order to provide insight and perspective. Unfortunately, I am bound by a life-long NDA.

--- End of line (MCP)

...

 

[Yooper]

...

Hi, Chris. I think you are giving far too much credence to the complainant or his/her/xer narrative of events.

My sense is of course we're going to see a narrative that paints this complaint and the actions of the complainant in a noble light; that's what all complainants do (legitimate complaint or not). And it doesn't surprise me to see media outlets with a anti-Trump bent to pick up the complainant's narrative as "gospel truth" and focus on the aspects of the complaint that paints it in the worst possible light for Trump.

This, however, is not a legitimate complaint from what I've read to date. That's why I'm disparaging it. And I take that position from, as I wrote, working in an IG's office and dealing with crap complaints like this one.

Bottom line, this complaint smells to high heaven for quite a few reasons and no amount of "lipstick on the pig" will make it any more attractive and/or legit.

Having said this, if verifiable info comes to light that causes me to change my mind I will and admit the error. At this point, though, nothing compels me to consider doing so.

Appreciate the dialog. Wishing you a great weekend!

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Gilligan]

...

...the lengths you will go to support your lefty buddies.. Good thing yr just a kid..contortions like that hurt more later in life.

 

[Yooper]

Let me add this to this thread:

Was the 'Whistleblower' Part of a Plan?

The press has universally adopted the convention of referring to the person who started the Ukraine frenzy as 'the whistleblower,' in part because his identity is unknown. Until we know his name--he reportedly is a CIA employee--I would rather call him 'the Democratic Party loyalist.' Now that...

www.powerlineblog.com

The purpose of the multiple “inquiries” through which we are about to suffer is not, of course, to learn anything about events in Ukraine. It is, rather, to generate as many headlines as possible from friendly newspapers (i.e., all of them) that pair the words “Trump” and “impeachment.”

The Powerline blog post cites this NY Post article:

Former CIA official on whistleblower: ‘How could this be an intelligence matter?’

Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy, served in 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and to the chief of staff of the National Security Council. He previously held national…

nypost.com

I share Mr. Fleitz' suspicions (again, from having worked in an IC IG office).

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[GURPS]

Poor assumption on your part. I have read the complaint and I feel pretty certain others here on the forum have as well.

the dude wrote part of his COMPLAINT based on NEWS Stories ... he is NO Whistle blower ... he has NO 1st hand knowledge, it is all hearsay and innuendo .... testimony would not hold up in Court

 

[Chris0nllyn]

the dude wrote part of his COMPLAINT based on NEWS Stories ... he is NO Whistle blower ... he has NO 1st hand knowledge, it is all hearsay and innuendo .... testimony would not hold up in Court

And yet the complaint filed/dated weeks before Trump released the transcript is spot on about the discussion with Zelenski. Amazing.

 

[Yooper]

Let's add this to the conversation:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...irement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge

Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

This is really starting to smell bad. (And not for Trump. Starting to look like a "hit" placed on Trump. Wondering who would have means, motive, and opportunity? Hmmm.)

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Burnthings]

The White House just admitted they had the actual record on a private server (the irony).

This was also part of the Whistle Blowers complaint.

Congress has issued 3 subpoenas to Pompeo to get the actual records by October 4th.

 

[Yooper]

The White House just admitted they had the actual record on a private server (the irony).

Let's more clearly define the terms. It was not a "private server"; it was a classified, government server with restricted access. Perfectly legal (as there are many servers/systems where access is severely restricted).

No irony required.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Midnightrider]

Let's more clearly define the terms. It was not a "private server"; it was a classified, government server with restricted access. Perfectly legal (as there are many servers/systems where access is severely restricted).

No irony required.

--- End of line (MCP)

The funniest part is that trump’s administration is so pourous that even though the transcript was locked away in a secure system (supposedly to keep the call from being leaked like the one to the Mexican President) there were multiple leakers.

Unless of course you believe the whistleblower was a supervisor or lead who would have been debriefed. Of course that would mean it’s not really third hand

 

[Yooper]

The funniest part is that trump’s administration is so pourous that even though the transcript was locked away in a secure system (supposedly to keep the call from being leaked like the one to the Mexican President) there were multiple leakers.

I don't think this is a case where the "administration is so pourous [sic]." What I think happened was that the complainant got the gist of the conversation (or more?) from IC and/or NSC call transcribers and went from there. My sense is that no one thought Trump would release the transcript (or even the complaint?) and that Trump would seek to defend himself based solely on refuting the media's coordinated, talking-point allegations.

Having said that, if Trump did release the transcript it would still be seen as a bit of a win (at the minimum) by the mischief makers: foreign leaders might now be reticent to take/make calls with Trump (and oh, btw, future Presidents).

So the only thing I believe at this point is that we have a real problem due to a bunch of folks who don't understand their constitutional oaths as Federal officers (be it military, intelligence, etc.). And a (dis)loyal opposition that is strategically willing to burn the house down for short-term, tactical, possible 2020 gain.

This silliness (currently being employed by the anti-Trump crowd is treasonous insofar as these folks are violating their oaths to serve the Constitution. If anyone is going to say that they (or these folks) are serving the Constitution we may have a far more serious/dangerous problem on our hands (or these folks have watched "Seven Days in May" too many times and drawn the wrong conclusions).

I know I'm not alone in saying that I served the Commander-in-Chief faithfully and in accordance with my oath to the Constitution regardless of the President's party affiliation or my take on the President's policy/policies. Wish these folks would have the same sense of loyalty to the Nation.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Gilligan]

And yet the complaint filed/dated weeks before Trump released the transcript is spot on about the discussion with Zelenski. Amazing.

"spot on"..how, exactly??

 

[Yooper]

Speaking of irony:


Clinton Foundation, anyone?

So, glad to see this:


--- End of line (MCP)

 

[BOP]

Since none of you will bother to make the effort to read it yourselves and will only rely on the propaganda postings of comrade GURPS, here is a link to the actual "whistleblower complaint".

None of you will click on it of course. None of you will read it. Which is just a further indictment of your cultlike mentalities.

I, and at least one other person here in our cozy little forum, have been in a cult. A real, no-kidding, brainwashing type religious cult. This ain't it.

Demonrats, as my grandfather used to call them, on the other hand...well, you can see where I'm going with that without any cheese, right?

Besides, we don't have to read this particular whistle-blower complaint. As has been pointed out to you, it reads almost exactly like the Russian collusion/obstruction complaint. Nearly verbatim, in fact. Instead of using a washed-up former British "operative," we're apparently using a low-level US intelligence "operative" this time.

Oh, and I like that penciling out of the Top Secret classification thingie. That was a nice touch. Hot off the presses.

 

[Midnightrider]

I, and at least one other person here in our cozy little forum, have been in a cult. A real, no-kidding, brainwashing type religious cult. This ain't it.

Demonrats, as my grandfather used to call them, on the other hand...well, you can see where I'm going with that without any cheese, right?

Besides, we don't have to read this particular whistle-blower complaint. As has been pointed out to you, it reads almost exactly like the Russian collusion/obstruction complaint. Nearly verbatim, in fact. Instead of using a washed-up former British "operative," we're apparently using a low-level US intelligence "operative" this time.

Oh, and I like that penciling out of the Top Secret classification thingie. That was a nice touch. Hot off the presses.

Why would you read it, the leader of cult 45 already told you want to think.....

The penciling out would have been when the document was redacted, just like the black boxes

 

[SamSpade]

I hope you will pause from your match play to understand the sad reality two can play this game and that some will probably want to/will.... That's the sad state of affairs y'all have put us in. Hope you're happy.

A lesson that seems to be hard for people to learn in Washington, and only the veterans of politics attempt to understand - don't create a weapon if it can be later used to hit YOU with. Don't set precedents you wouldn't want the opposition to be able to use - ON YOU. We have seen a LOT of this over the past 30 years.