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.
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...