Posted on 12/28/2019 6:48:26 PM PST by mdittmar
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — President Donald Trump retweeted, then deleted, a post that included the alleged name of the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint ultimately led to Trump’s impeachment by the House.
Just before midnight Friday, Trump retweeted a message from Twitter user @Surfermom77, an account that claims to be a woman named Sophia who lives in California. The account shows some indications of automation, including an unusually high amount of activity and profile pictures featuring stock images from the internet.
By Saturday morning, the post had been removed from Trump’s feed, though it could still be found in other ways, including on a website that logs every presidential tweet.
While Trump has repeatedly backed efforts to unmask the whistleblower, his retweet marks the first time he has directly sent the alleged name into the Twitter feed of his 68 million followers.
Unmasking the whistleblower, who works in the intelligence field, could violate federal protection laws that have historically been supported by both parties.
The whistleblower filed a complaint in August about one of Trump’s telephone conversations with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and other dealings with the Eastern European nation. The complaint prompted House Democrats to launch a probe that ended with Trump’s impeachment earlier this month. The matter now heads to the Senate, where the Republican majority is expected to acquit the president.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
The form was clarified to reflect the law, which specifically states that hearsay information is OK.
It doesn't matter, however, because this whistle blower used the old form and claimed to have first hand knowledge of some of the allegations.
Changing the form had nothing to do with this claim.
Thank you for your clarification. Nobody has articulated this issue in such a clear fashion before.
How does the media know that so-and-so is ‘The Whistleblower’?
A change in the law would have to be signed by the president, would it not?
Maybe he did!
Is it possible to see some evidence or proof that what you claim is true?
Good to know all those Ozark hillbilly sassafrass diggers are involved in fair trade
|
♫ "One Ciaramella" ♫ (youtube song link) |
Hmmm. Now that you mention it!
ERIC CIARAMELLA KILLED JEFFREY EPSTEIN!
Actually, it doesn’t. It’s silent on the subject of second hand information, so they just imputed that it’s OK. The regulations promulgated by the ICIG, to avoid chasing wild gooses, prohibited hearsay and rumor in reporting information. They changed both regulations and form without going through the required procedures for changing either. Both are required to go through certain steps before either can be altered, going through several layers of approval before being accepted, a several month long process. Atkinson changed both the regulations and the form in ad hoc in mid August to allow Eric Ciaramella to comply with the regulations and form in his complaint. Changing the forms ad hoc was beyond his authority.
However, even with new regulations and new form, the filing still did not meet the law because Ciaramella was filing the complaint against someone who was outside of the the Intelligence Community’s and therefore the ICIG’s jurisdiction. The ICIG just arrogated jurisdiction, even after both his and the DOJ told him he did not have jurisdiction, and sent the complaint to the Intelligence oversight committees of the House and Senate. That was beyond his authority.
no, that’s the Coup’s talking point to justify the changes they made. However, there is no paper trail for any of the changes made. The new form does not even have a proper federal Form ID. The original Form for the report was ICIG Form 401. The new form lacks that number. There is no trail in the record where it shows it has gone through any kind of editing, approval, and certification process required for adoption, something required of all Federal forms. Similarly, there is no paper trail showing the required steps for changing the Federal regulations for enforcing the IC whistleblower statute. None. No public hearings for input, no time period for input from those to be affected by the changes, etc, no submission to Congress, nothing. Zip. Just suddenly, there they are, appearing in the DNI’s website for public use, as was the new, unnumbered form, on September 27, 2019! Not only that, there are some very strange typos in both, typos that would have been found and corrected were they both submitted for editing and correction had the proper procedures been followed, instead of being created ad hoc to provide verisimilitude to the whistleblower’s second and third hand reporting when they suddenly realized it was going to be a problem. . . Creating the bogus form and regulations from whole cloth and backdating them for use in a hurry just after it became public knowledge on September 25.
They still cannot come up with earlier meeting minutes, earlier emails, previous revisions, etc., showing discussions where these regulation and form changes were discussed, because such meetings, emails, and revisions, never happened and do not exist. The only creation dates on the PDF files of the form and regulations are post September 25. Ergo, they are ad hoc, post dated frauds.
Thank you, Swardmaker, I believe what you are saying is what I have heard.
Of course, it’s possible that it has changed, but I think we would have made more of a fuss about it rather than just accepting. We are dealing with people who have ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH.
Very dangerous.
Fair enough, I overstated it.
The law isn't specific but it doesn't prohibit hearsay.
The regulations promulgated by the ICIG, to avoid chasing wild gooses, prohibited hearsay and rumor in reporting information.
Funny, the ICIG said:
"...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."
It's true that the ICIG had a rule that they wouldn't transmit a complaint to the DNI without first hand information, but that requirement was moot because the whistleblower stated on the form that he did have first hand information on some of the allegations.
Atkinson changed both the regulations and the form in ad hoc in mid August to allow Eric Ciaramella to comply with the regulations and form in his complaint.
That's not true.
"The 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..."
The whistleblower used the old form.
As the Trump-appointed ICIG said:
"In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible."
The problem with your theory is the whistleblower didn't use the new form.
He used the old form and more to the point stated that he did have first hand knowledge, so your entire rant is moot.
I’M STILL WITH YOU.
Thanks again.
💐 Sophia 💐 @Surfermom77Dec 27
Rep. Ratcliffe suggested Monday that the “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella committed perjury by making false statements in his written forms filed with the ICIG and that Adam Schiff is hiding evidence of Ciaramella’s crimes to protect him from a criminal investigation.
Quote Tweet
💐 Sophia 💐 @Surfermom77
Dec 27
Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff still won’t release transcripts from their secret basement hearings that exonerate President Trump and indict the alleged whistleblower of perjury! https://youtu.be/GiItit2gMfg
Yep, it’s there. Good, I hope Trump plans to fight in the senate and expose all. This short trial BS is to protect the guilty. This is an election year and the dems were stupid enough to pull this now, the time to fight is now!
The AssPress doesn’t say what the deleted tweet said.
It’s rather hilarious the contortion they go through to defend this charade.
So Trump tweets the name Ciaramella but makes no claim that he’s the whistleblower. But the AssPress refuses to print Trump’s tweet because it contains the name of the whistleblower, which theoretically nobody knows. So by not printing Trump’s tweet isn’t the AP admitting and thus outing Ciaramella as the whistleblower?
I thought anyone accused of a crime has the right to face their accuser.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.