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 ...
So you say, but ICIG states that he investigated the claims and determined that the WB had direct knowledge of at lease some of the alleged acts.
Get it through your head that ICIG Atkinson is dirty too! Who do you think conspired to slip in new regulations without holding the legally hearings and public comment time...
Let's put some meat on the bones of this conspiracy theory.
Who all is Atkinson conspiring with and to what end?
It can't be the WB because the WB didn't use the new form or take advantage of any of the new regs.
Is your theory that the ICIG is anticipating the need to have softer regulations in place for some future complaint? There was certainly no benefit to having them in place for the one we know about.
It’s an amateur fake created on the spur of the ad hoc moment by someone unfamiliar with US Government Form requirements, doing things that would not survive the standard form creation process in any bureaucracy.
You have outlined what you consider to be serious deficiencies with the new form.
Simple question. Are you aware of any instance where this new form has actually been used?
The ICIG validated the hoaxblower despite admitting he likely had political bias. You can dissemble like Clinton all you want on the form issue but it’s obvious the ICIG is part of The Resistance.
Ihe ICIG never transmitted the WB complaint to Congress.
His personal opinion doesn't really matter and his "validation", if it happened, had no effect.
Eric Ciaramella should've been indicted and imprisoned long ago.
No justice, no Republic.
The only problem with that statement is that the Form-401 form dated 24MAY2018 on its header is called “Urgent Concern Disclosure Form,” four words, not “Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form,” five words, on the un-numbered, “August 2019” (note, no specific date) form released on September 27, 2019 as a PDF where the meta data shows first creation dates only as early as September 25.
What we see here, in these statements from the ICIG’s office, is what is called “dancing” to cover their tracks. Note the name they use in this particular excuse sentence is the “preferred name” someone renamed the new form, NOT the name of the form the whistleblower actually used, a form of begging the question.
Whoever created the phony new form gratuitously and pleonastically renamed it to what they thought it should be called, rearranging the name and adding unnecessary word “of” (breaking the fewest-number-of-words-on-a-form-is-better rule), rather than using the perfectly good, previously used and already government approved, shorter four word name.
Some people cannot resist breaking that other rule of KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. The form forger should have taken the exact format of the original form and simply slipped the new wording into the old form, keeping the ICIG Form-401 number, changing the revision date in the correct format, and maintaining the name, and resisting the urge to amend the name, i.e., not made editorial changes to suit his or her peculiarities esthetic in writing style.
Government form creation is not the time nor the place to exercise one’s creative writing style, there is a style book one must adhere to. Another rule: when in government do as the government does. If the stupid forger had, the subtle changes would likely not have been noticed, instead, they stand out like they were intended to be noticed.
On the other hand, semimojo, perhaps that was the forger’s intent, similar to the more than fifty “Oh so obvious” unforced errors on Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate that just begged “Hey! Look over here! I’m a Fraud!”
Unless they handed this creation job to some highschool intern to create (anybody believe they are THAT stupid), then they handed this job to someone really stupid to do. . . A person who did make unforced errors in its creation that called attention to its fraudulent nature with big RED FLAGS that it can’t be an official government form.
OK. For the sake of argument I'll stipulate that the form was fraudulent.
What earthly difference did it make given that the WB claimed, and the ICIG verified, direct knowledge?
Easy to know. ICIG Atkinson sent the letter to Chairman Adam Schiff and Senator Richard Burr on September 9, 2019, but the META DATA on the lCIG’s letter complaining about how the DNI and DOJ handled it was August 12, 2019, the day he created it, the same day he received the complaint!
How is that possible? How could he know the determination would be made by his own office’s career legal counsel, the DNI’s legal counsel’s determination, and the determination of the DOJ’s legal counsel if he had not been advised that WOULD be the obvious and LEGAL determination on this complaint, which had been the same as had been made in prior such determinations involving prior administrations outside of the Intelligence Community?
That’s simple too. As soon as IG Atkinson read that complaint, on the first day he received it, he knew it would be kicked back by the DNI, DOJ, and all of the career legal counsels due to the complaint not being under his jurisdiction. There are multiple reasons why Atkinson would know it’s not in his jurisdiction right off the bat, and not something he’s even permitted to investigate at all.
Why would it not be under the ICIG’s jurisdiction? First of all, except for a few positions in the White House, most appointed employees in the administration, and most certainly and specifically the President are not members of the Intelligence Community; secondly elected officials, as is the President, are statutorily not subject to IC whistleblowing reporting; thirdly, the subject matter is not permitted be reported at all due to statutorily being a difference of policy; fourthly, having to do with a Diplomatic phone call, it is a matter of Executive Privilege, and again, statutorily excluded. These are all determinations that have been made multiple times before by multiple legal counsels, under multiple administrations. It’s a no brainer.
The ICIG would know these facts of his statutory jurisdiction as well as he knew the inside of his eyeballs. It would be like a city cop not knowing where his city’s city limits are, if he did not. Yet IG Atkinson, instead of dismissing the complaint out-of-hand, or telling Eric Ciamarella to take his dog and pony show to the FBI, proceeds to exceed his authority and jurisdiction, and his own currently published, and therefore, official regulations and complaint form, to investigate something he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt will be LEGALLY tossed out as exceeding his statutory authority and jurisdiction. Not only does he proceed to illegally open a case he knows is beyond his jurisdictional authority, he sits down on the same day he receives the complaint and composes a letter accusing a DNI who has yet to take office of “somehow abusing his office in a political manner,” and does the same about his further superiors at the DOJ for routinely doing what has been done in the past in similar cases, to deny his conclusions about something he has no jurisdiction doing and has not yet even sent to them!
He knows very well what is going to happen when he sends this to the DNI’s office, no matter who is sitting in the DNI’s seat. It’s a foregone conclusion, it will be declared not in the ICIG’s jurisdiction. That’s why he can write the letter in advance and know it will be useful weeks later, no matter what happens when he sends it on. It will be rejected for the same reasons. He will just claim it’s supposedly for political reasons protecting President Trump, even though it is normal operating procedures.
THAT META DATA date inside his letter is exactly what exposes him as part of the plot. It’s not the date when he sent it, but the date when he wrote it that shows what’s going on.
You say the WB didn't have direct knowledge, but : "As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct..."
Semimojo, a lie is still a lie, no matter WHO is making excuses for it. EVEN YOU!
Again, you are not realizing that it doesn’t matter WHAT Ciamarella claimed in his PERJURED check box or in his multiple pages of lying statements, what matters is that he LIED in all of it. The claim that he had DIRECT EVIDENCE does not exist in any of the statements in his multiple pages of legalese his attorneys prepared for ICIG Atkinson to find credible. Not a single whit of direct evidence. NONE. I’ve read it. How can Atkinson find what is simply not there?
I again repeat, I read every word in the legal eagle prepared section and there is no way that the “WB,” as you keep referring to Eric Ciamarella—What are you? A shill for the MSM? Use his damned name, for Pete’s sake, we on FR aren’t protecting that lying snake!—was ever in a location where he could have had any “direct knowledge” of the events for which he was filing a complaint.
Eric Ciamarella had been kicked out of his positions at the White House and sent packing in early 2018, if not earlier, under suspicion of leaking other classified communications. The leaks STOPPED after he was sent back to the CIA and his “need-to-know” access to White House communications was cut off! Ergo, he could have had no “First Hand” knowledge of anything he claimed to know.
It was ALL second and third hand. He LIED! Get that THROUGH YOUR HEAD! Eric Ciamarella, the WB, “Whistleblower,” who is Eric Ciamarella, is a KNOWN and complete LIAR! Get it? He committed Perjury when he checked that box he had first hand knowledge and signed the complaint form!
You can dance and quote the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s talking points as much as you like, but you cannot get around the fact that Eric Ciamarella, the WB, “Whistleblower,” who is Eric Ciamarella, is a KNOWN and complete LIAR! Get it? He committed Perjury when he checked that box he had first hand knowledge and signed the complaint form!
IF Whistleblower Eric Ciamarella had DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of the accusations, something not a single one of the witnesses before the Schiff of Nadler committees professed to possess, don’t you think he would have been called to present that DIRECT KNOWLEDGE to those committees?Ergo, semimojo, ERIC CIAMARELLO did not have any DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of any wrong doing, and only lied, over and over.
That, in fact, is what I read what he attested to in his filed complaint. LIES. Not a word he related to his attorneys who wrote down what he claimed comported with what was claimed was said in that call was in the official (and attested under oath accurate by persons who had actually heard to call) transcript of the phone call. In other words, he lied about having first hand information.
That also makes it a fact that the ICIG, a long term member of the Deep State, the Intelligence Community Inspector General Atkinson is also a liar when he says he found first hand information, he did not. He revealed himself as a coconspirator. He’s DIRTY. GET IT? Stop using him as a source to clean up the WB, Whistleblower, spy, leaker, Eric Ciamarella’s reputation or Eric Ciamarella’s lying third-hand, second-hand, rumor laden and completely lacking in first hand evidence statements. The ICIG is a Player in this DRAMA. His role was to give Eric Ciaramella some gravitas, than a mere walk-on role, and to hide him behind a fake, non-existent claim that he’s entitled to anonymity, to make ad hoc CHANGES to the FORM and REGULATIONS and backdate them, allowing Eric Cirarmella’s hearsay and third and second hand reporting credibility which Adam Schiff’s script started to come apart in late September. He did what his puppet masters told him to do, performing willingly when they pulled his strings, and like a good little puppet, he dances when they want him to dance.
Your arguments about the various legal opinions from the DNI and DOJ might matter if the ICIG had not heeded them and instead forwarded the complaint to Congress, but he didn't.
Despite being given the authority to determine urgency he deferred to the Administration's wishes and didn't transmit the complaint, so again your point is moot.
You’ve got to be kidding! Semimojo, where have you been? HE DID! Did you not read the factual events I outlined for you? That’s exactly what ICIG did. You are arguing a falsehood. How in the hell do you think the Intelligence Committees in Congress GOT the complaint?
It is NOT ICIG Atkinson’s role to determine “urgency,” as you claim, but rather to advise the DNI of his investigation of a matter filed as an urgent matter. It is the Director National Intelligence who makes the final determination. Did you read the ICIG’s whistleblower law about this? Again, semimojo, I did read it In fact, I posted it in its entirety on Freerepublic. From what you posted above, I don’t think you did. . . Because what you just claimed is not in that statute.
That law specifically excludes political matters. It excludes elected officials. It excludes policy matters. It specifically excludes the ICIG from reporting anything that is NOT in the Intelligence Community. That is what that statute specifically states. The ICIG MUST defer to the DNI’s determination about whether or not it is an urgent matter or not, or if it is in the Intelligence Community. Specific to what you just claimed, the statute says ICIG has two calendar weeks to investigate a reported matter, at which point he must submit a report on his findings to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who then has five calendar days to determine whether or not the matter rises to an urgent matter or not, or if it is even within the IG’s jurisdiction. It is the DNI’s duty to decide to either report or not report to the the Oversight committees of Congress. In this instance, the new Acting DNI (appointed August 15, 2019), to be absolutely certain, not only consulted his own career legal counsel, went further by requesting the input of the DOJ’s career Legal Counsel, and, to allow for more time due to the subject matter spanning a weekend, notified Chairmen Schiff and Burr that there was a potential IC urgent matter that might come to them and requested MORE TIME beyond the statutory five days to determine jurisdiction, for which both granted an additional five days. It was determined by all career legal counsels at every level that the ICIG did not have legal jurisdiction over the President, nor was it a matter to be referred to the Intelligence committees as it was outside their spheres of oversight. Atkinson decided he was more knowledgeable than all of those superiors and reported it, like a good little deep state dancing puppet.
The ICIG DID in fact ignore the determination of the DNI and the DOJ that it was NOT in his jurisdiction and and he did indeed send his August 12 META DATA dated letters to Chairmen Schiff and Burr, complaining that an urgent Intelligence matter was being mishandled politically. That is a fact. THAT IS HOW THEY GOT IT, aside from the known fact that Schiff and his staff had been talking to Eric Ciamarella in early August if not late July, scripting this whole thing, likely assigning Atkinson his role to do this. There really is no other explanation for the META DATA dates on things that should not have those dates on them.
META DATA dates and timestamps are very telling when you look for them. Meta Data time stamps on uploaded/downloaded files shows that the DNC was not hacked by the Russians, for example, but was downloaded locally to a Flash Drive. In fact, the July 5th Metadata on those data files which indicate it has Russian, has been shown to be pasted on, not original, and the original Metadata can be found underneath. Oops.
Look, Mojo, Eric Ciamarella, IS taking advantage of the changes in regulations and new form retroactively put in place. WAKE UP!!! It does not matter which form he used because the DEEP STATERS are imputing the new form to Ciamarella. They don’t care that the new form was not available to ANYONE until September 27, 2019. That is a FACT, no matter how much you want it not to be. They created it and back-dated it, just as they back-dated the change in regulations so they could accept hearsay and second/third-hand reporting. NONE of that matters because ICIG Atkinson also could not investigate a complaint about someone OUTSIDE the Intelligence Community. That applies to President Trump. But Atkinson did that anyway, ignoring THAT LAW, TOO. When are you going to get it through your thick skull that LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO THESE PEOPLE?!?
You call it a “conspiracy theory” then ask who Atkinson is conspiring with? How about Adam Schiff? That’s who Eric Ciamarella was sent to after being talked to about who to file his complaint with. We know this is true. The pattern of activity is there. The META DATA shows that Atkinson wrote his complaint letter about how the DNI and the DOJ handled the complaint BEFORE HE EVER SENT IT TO THE DNI & DOJ on the DAY he received the complaint. Those are FACTS based on hard evidence in the computers. Yet, here you are dancing as hard as you can trying to deny they exist. Yet there those dates are.
Frankly, Mojo, I am beginning to think you are a DNC shill on FR.
You have outlined what you consider to be serious deficiencies with the new form.
Simple question. Are you aware of any instance where this new form has actually been used?
Why does it matter if the fake form has been used? Frankly, I’d be surprised if it was being used because it has not been properly approved. Nor have the new regulations gone through the proper steps to be registered in the federal Registry. They just suddenly appeared with the ICIG claiming they were the new ones. That’s not the way new regulations are created. You can’t just plop them into existence. It doesn’t work that way, except when the Deep State needs them to get Donald Trump. Then, all of the sudden, they’ve changed. WOW! Magic Regulation changes.
Open your mind and eyes. Why are you so protective of Eric Ciaramella’s name? Try typing it on FR. You can do it. If you don’t we will all know you are a DNC shill on here. Go ahead. Free yourself. First letter is an uppercase E. . . Follow it with a lower case r then an i then a c. . . . Go ahead. Try it. It won’t hurt you. You won’t turn to a pillar of salt.
Oh, for Pete’s sake. No, don’t stipulate a fact for the sake of argument. I’ve shown it in too many ways that most people with an ounce of brains can see it as a fact. YOU, on the other hand want to retain your own facts.
The ICIG, which you keep failing to recognize, by his own pattern of activity, was part of the RESISTANCE and is dirty. The ICIG did no such thing as “verify direct knowledge.” What part of “I read” the entire set of documents submitted by Eric Ciamarella, a person YOU cannot bring yourself to name, using a phony set of “WB” initials for “Whistleblower,” when we all know he was actually no such thing, but rather at best, a weasel, or a spy, a leaker, revealing classified information (had he done any such thing), but instead of producing an entirely created narrative that is, in fact, on the record FALSE TO FACT, as exposed by the actual transcribed, and sworn to be, accurate transcript. I went through it several times, read it with a fine-tooth comb approach looking for the “direct knowledge” of the allegations made and found NOTHING that was direct knowledge. In fact, everything was second-hand, third-hand, or taken from newspaper accounts that have now, with the release of the DOJ’s Inspector general’s Report shown to be FALSE. Oops. No first hand knowledge except the reports of what Eric Ciamarella says he, himself, did in trying to be his own investigator in calling and finding other so-called withnesses who also heard something second-hand.
Perhaps by “direct knowledge” you mean when he says “Someone told me” that such and such happened. I hate to break it to you and ICIG Atkinson, that doesn’t count. Nor does, “I read in the Washington Post” or “I saw on CNN” count as Direct Knowledge. . . But that was what I found in Eric Ciamarella’s affidavit attached to his Form-401 where he checked the box claiming he had “Direct Personal Knowledge” of the events. . . Yet he was not brave enough to sign his name to this cowardly document, having his lawyers instead attest it was true to the best of THEIR knowledge. BAH! That is not, in fact, an attestment from Eric Ciaramella. We have only second hand attestment through attorneys. Double Bah!
You wanted to know why this matters?
If the ICIG Atkinson had not:
What is with Semimojo? He fights so hard to protect the Deep State Resistance people like “WB” Eric Ciaramella. He cannot even bring himself to type his name. He blows smoke about the ICIG Atkinson NOT passing on the complaint to the Congressional Intelligence Committees when that is absolutely false. He did, ignoring the DNI and DOJ determination it was not part of his jurisdiction. That has long been known, yet Mojo keeps claiming it didn’t happen. So, you got any insight?
You've already acknowledged that the WB used the old form. What are you talking about?
They don’t care that the new form was not available to ANYONE until September 27, 2019.
That's because, as you've acknowledged, the WB didn't use the new form.
This is A, B, C simple. What am I missing?
Frankly, Mojo, I am beginning to think you are a DNC shill on FR.
Whatever.
Why does it matter if the fake form has been used? Frankly, I’d be surprised if it was being used because it has not been properly approved.
Maybe it matters because you're slandering the name of a Trump-appointed, Senate confirmed man based on total speculation. So what if he changed the form? As you admit, it had nothing to do with this whistleblower. What is your point? You're incapable of even speculating on what difference it would have made in this case.
Nor have the new regulations gone through the proper steps to be registered in the federal Registry. They just suddenly appeared with the ICIG claiming they were the new ones.
Your complaint is someone didn't follow all of the administrative rules while updating a form.
Not that the changes affected anything material, just that the process wasn't up to snuff to get published in the Federal Registry.
Powerful.
Why are you so protective of Eric Ciaramella’s name? Try typing it on FR. You can do it. If you don’t we will all know you are a DNC shill on here.
Eric Ciaramella.
I've now proven my purity.
What are you, 14?.
Please post a link to a document where I can examine the meta data.
You want us to believe that on August 12th the ICIG received a complaint and within less than 24 hours, realistically within 12 hours, the ICIG drafted a response including details of future actions/reactions, passed it through all of the legal and other reviews required, had it typed with all footnotes, etc., had it published and then sat on it for the next 3+ weeks without any changes for no reason. There was nothing to gain by locking in the response on day one!
The really laughable aspect of this is you claim to have a first hand understanding of the workings of federal bureaucracy yet claim that this scenario is plausible.
The other possibility is the dates on the official letters from the Trump-appointed ICIG are accurate and you may have misinterpreted some alleged meta data on an internet document.
I suppose it's possible you've logically kicked William of Ockham squarely in the nuts but I'm skeptical.
Regarding the rest of your post, just a few points:
The ICIG verified that the WB had direct knowledge of some of the alleged actions.
You can say the ICIG was deluded, dishonest, or just mistaken, but you can't say he didn't verify the fact.
As you know, I've posted the link to his own words.
Second, the ICIG never transmitted the complaint to Congress. In fact, under statute his job was to transmit the complaint to the DNI (after determining that it was an urgent matter) and the DNI was to transmit it to the Intelligence Committee.
The DNI said the President wasn't covered by the statute and declined to transmit the charges.
Have you read the letters you're referencing?
Do you understand the basics of this process?
The existence of the complaint was leaked specifically because the complaint wasn't transmitted to Congress.
You can dance and quote the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s talking points as much as you like, but you cannot get around the fact that Eric Ciamarella, the WB, “Whistleblower,” who is Eric Ciamarella, is a KNOWN and complete LIAR! Get it? He committed Perjury when he checked that box he had first hand knowledge and signed the complaint form!
Let's see, I can choose to believe you who has seen some stuff on the internet and has demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happened here or a highly respected, nominated by President Trump, confirmed by the US Senate, professional who's gone out in public with his statements allowing anyone to prove him wrong (which they haven't).
Sorry, you're my second choice.
The ICIG DID in fact ignore the determination of the DNI and the DOJ that it was NOT in his jurisdiction and and he did indeed send his August 12 META DATA dated letters to Chairmen Schiff and Burr, complaining that an urgent Intelligence matter was being mishandled politically. That is a fact.
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
The letters he sent to Schiff and Nunes were sent because the whistleblower complaint had not been transmitted to Congress.
Can you acknowledge this?
How?
The WB has stated that he had direct knowledge which means there's no effective difference between the old and new forms.
You know this but won't admit it.
Please tell us all what would be different if a new form had never been drafted.
WOW! You are delusional. There is no “us all” challenging this, just delusional YOU who cannot connect obvious dots and refuses to even type the name of Eric CIAramella because you are a shill for the DNC and their plot to remove President Trump!
I’ve been telling you and all others on FR what I know to be fact in multiple posts, but you are the only one who cannot see the connections or even bring himself to write the name Eric Ciamarella. That tells me you are likely to be a paid SHILL, working for the DNC, or a DEEP STATE operative, working to deceive anyone who may be industrial strength stupid.
I KNOW there is NO SUCH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE in the affidavit filed with the Form-401 because I took the time to read it, in depth, as I have TOLD YOU, many times before in this thread. Most people did not bother to do that. Obviously you did not.
Don’t tell me what I know, you delusional Idiot. I have repeatedly told you what I know. Do not call me a liar, as you just did. Doing so justifies me elevating you to the status of “Idiot” and “Liar.” The liars are Eric CIAmarella, your euphemistic “WB”, ICIG Atkinson, and now YOU.
Your repeated use of it is proving you are a DNC, MSM, or DEEP STATE SHILL on FR. You can’t get more obvious. Why not just admit it, or prove me wrong by simply posting that forbidden name?
If Eric CIAmarella, your WB, HAD shown he had “direct knowledge” in his affidavit dictated to his attorneys, then there’d be justification for checking the box on Form-401. HE DID NOT SHOW ANY SUCH THING IN HIS STATEMENT! Can I shout that any louder, idiot? There is not a single statement in that affidavit that claims Direct Knowledge of wrong doing. Not ONE! Yet Eric Ciamarella, your WB, LIED, committed perjury by checking that box on Form-401, claiming he did have Direct Knowledge on Form-401. ICIG Atkinson proved his complicity by accepting it and claiming there was when to anyone with any degree of reading comprehension can see there simply is none in the Form-401, nor any in the accompanying affidavit of what he is reporting. NONE.
The new form does not have either check box, nor does it require Direct Knowledge, which is absurd on its face, as innuendo, hearsay, and rumor are not admissible in any court of law in the country. The Statute does not mention such “evidence” because it is not “evidence” by any definition of the word, no matter how many Democrat Congressmen want to try and define it as such for the purposes of impeachment. It has NEVER been accepted as evidence in American Jurisprudence in a court of law. Why don’t you try watching Judge Judy and see if SHE accepts someone saying “So and so, told me so!” as factual, or will even hear what someone says when they try. She will shut them down as soon as they try to introduce it. “It’s not admissible evidence.”
By creating the new form, and imputing it to Eric Ciamarella, your WB, those involved avoid having to charge him with perjury, lying on a Federal affidavit officially submitted to the ICIG under penalty of perjury. Get it? They can unconstitutionally claim they were going to change the regulations and form anyway, so it’s not a major issue, despite the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. These changes also smack of being an unconstitutional “Bills of Attainder”, in which the regulation and Form-401 were altered solely for the benefit of one person’s complaint filing, Eric Ciaramella’s complaint against President Trump. It has actually been stated by officials in the ICIG’s office that had your WB, Eric CIAmarella, just waited a week to file his complaint, it would be a moot issue... ignoring that both the regulatory changes and new faux form do not appear on the DNI’s website until LATE SEPTEMBER (September 27th) and have meta data creation dates of September 25, with non-standard governmental revision date formats, proving conclusively they’ve been backdated. OOPS!
Can you come up with any other rational reason for these two pertinent documents with no prior current amendment history to have been created without going through proper approval and then backdated? If so, state it!
This thread is dead, with just us on it. You are a waste of my valuable time.
Have you followed the rest of this thread with the complete intransigent, in the groove of impeachment of semimojo? He is quite a piece of work. I think he’s a DNC shill on FR. Take a look.
He consistently cannot bring himself to type the name of Eric Ciamarella. It’s amazing.
I haven’t noticed a pattern anywhere else, but there is certainly something wrong with his being supportive of President Trump here.
A very subtle, kind of quiet “you are all wrong...and I am here to save you all.”
I’ll pay attention from now on.
RE semimojo.
I read many of his posts and I believe you. The guy is a troll.
I've never said he had direct knowledge. I said he claimed to have direct knowledge, a fact that you've acknowledged several times, including in this post.
Why not just admit it, or prove me wrong by simply posting that forbidden name?
If that's the test I proved you wrong last night.
This thread is dead, with just us on it.
See you around...
No, you haven’t. Use it in context. In a populated thread. I just pinged you to one. Be an adult there.
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.