Trump Whistleblower Story Was All Smoke And Mirrors

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
It turns out the complaint is nothing more than a rumor reported by someone in the intelligence community. Buried in a lengthy CNN article about the complaint is the following paragraph:

The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower's concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration's determination that the complaint didn't fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.​

Granted, this is yet another anonymous source giving more context on what another anonymous source told a different outlet, but it still calls the entire story into question.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/52069/yup-looks-big-anti-trump-whistleblower-story-was-ashe-schow
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Too bad you and your source didn't read the next couple of paragraphs:

But given the sensitivity of the issue, the complaint is likely to have come from an official familiar with the scope of presidential power. And it was signed off as "urgent and credible" by the inspector general -- a Trump appointee -- who thought Congress should know in line with whistleblowing laws.
There are so many stunningly obvious points to make about all the deflection the ignorati, cultists and propagandist's are currently working on:

1. The most obvious: if it was "all smoke and mirrors' why did the inspector general deem it urgent and credible?

2. If it is smoke and mirrors, why doesn't Trump release the transcripts of the calls to the public?

3. If there is sensitive info in the readout, why withhold the transcript from the oversight committees?

Before you make the obligatory moronic posts, remember that all you morons are SOOOOOOOO concerned about the "rule of law" and ALWAYS want to see people put country ahead of party.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Somehow these media pukes need to be reined in.

Freedom of the press is one thing but this crap is getting scary.
Isn't there any news source in America that can be trusted?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Too bad you and your source didn't read the next couple of paragraphs:
But given the sensitivity of the issue, the complaint is likely to have come from an official familiar with the scope of presidential power. And it was signed off as "urgent and credible" by the inspector general -- a Trump appointee -- who thought Congress should know in line with whistleblowing laws.


too bad YOU did not quote the PREVIOUS SENTENCE

The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower's concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration's determination that the complaint didn't fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.


News Flash ..... No Direct Knowledge - NOT a Whistle Blower


There are so many stunningly obvious points to make about all the deflection the ignorati, cultists and propagandist's are currently working on:

1. The most obvious: if it was "all smoke and mirrors' why did the inspector general deem it urgent and credible? - False

2. If it is smoke and mirrors, why doesn't Trump release the transcripts of the calls to the public? - No Reason to Sugar Tits

3. If there is sensitive info in the readout, why withhold the transcript from the oversight committees?



Before you make the obligatory moronic posts, remember that all you morons are SOOOOOOOO concerned about the "rule of law" and ALWAYS want to see people put country ahead of party.

140955
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Who exactly is this unidentified “whistleblower”? What is the specific nature of his or her “urgent concern” complaint against the president? Does this complaint really qualify under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA)? These are just a few of the most fundamental questions that remain largely unknown.

Despite the paucity of facts, some reasonable observations and conclusions can be drawn.

  1. It appears that an American spy in one of our intelligence agencies may have been spying on our own president. The complaint suggests that this intel agent was listening in on Trump’s conversation with a foreign leader. Was this person officially asked to listen to the conversation or was he or she secretly listening in? We don’t know.
  2. This agent, who is an unelected and inferior federal employee in the government hierarchy, apparently believes that it is his/her job to second-guess the motivation behind the words of the elected president, who is the most superior officer in the U.S. government.
  3. Article II of the Constitution gives the president sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, make demands or offer promises. The Constitution does not grant the power of review, approval or disapproval to spies or other unelected officials in the executive branch.
  4. The ICWPA law defines the parameters of an “urgent concern” complaint as an abuse or violation of law “relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.” The president’s conversation with a foreign leader does not seem to fall under this whistleblower definition.
  5. It appears the acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) agrees with this assessment. His agency’s general counsel wrote a letter stating the complaint did not meet the ICWPA definition because it involved conduct “from someone outside the intel community and did not relate to intelligence activity,” according to a report by Fox News. This is why the DNI refused to forward the complaint to congress.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-trump-whistleblower
 

TPD

the poor dad
So Biden is on the record for threatening Ukraine to withhold money from them if they don’t fire their prosecutor. Yet the MSM outlets I watched last night said this had already been debunked. Can someone explain the me what was actually debunked concerning this situation with Joe Biden and his son?
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
So Biden is on the record for threatening Ukraine to withhold money from them if they don’t fire their prosecutor. Yet the MSM outlets I watched last night said this had already been debunked. Can someone explain the me what was actually debunked concerning this situation with Joe Biden and his son?
You don't seem to understand newspeak. 'Debunked' means 'things we don't want to believe'.
 
Top