Posted on 12/30/2019 8:15:40 PM PST by bitt
The truth behind House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff’s role in engineering President Trump’s impeachment may soon come out. Judicial Watch, a nonprofit group promoting government transparency, is suing to get the whistleblower’s e-mails.
That’s good news. Because no matter what comes of Trump’s Senate trial, Schiff should be held accountable for his devious methods.
The public also needs the truth about the so-called whistleblower. Real whistleblowers deserve to be treated like heroes. But Eric Ciaramella — the man Judicial Watch and many media accounts have identified as the whistleblower and who doesn’t deny it — is no hero.
To dignify Ciaramella with the term “whistleblower” misrepresents what he did. Sure, he filed what is technically called a whistleblower complaint. But he had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s controversial July 25 phone call or motivations. Every allegation in the complaint begins with “I learned from multiple US officials,” or “multiple officials told me,” or “officials with direct knowledge informed me.” Just gossip. He never names any sources. Ciaramella acted as the anti-Trumpers’ front man. As for courage, not an ounce: He is cowering from public view.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“I’ve been surprised that no one leaks Lindsay Graham’s lover or a former lover talks with National Enquirer.”
You’re right there. He has decided to be a pain in the keyster for the libs during the impeachment process and you know how much and often they will kill the messenger rather than prove the lie a fact. I have no idea why he came out of the woodwork on this one.
rwood
The whistle-blower does not exist. This article is built on a false premise.
There is an operative who was planted in the White House to spy and leak.
Why does Schiff have control of the “whistleblower?” What legal authority does the “whistleblower” program have?? How can the program be changed?
I had a old Boss who said that anonymous complaints are meaningless and he would not act on them. If someone does not have the courage and belief that something was wrong to stand up, be identified, and therefore be a part of the conversion, then the complaint has no merit and is ignored.
We know Flimsy is dirty. That is what wallowing for years with pigs like Juan McStain will get you. He is being blackmailed.
Of course I don't, and I think I'm beginning to see the problem with our conversation.
You're confusing documents and events and they appear to be all jumbled up in your mind.
A brief timeline:
Do you recall me telling you that the meta data evidence on his letter transmitting Eric Ciamarella’s complaint to the Congressional Intelligence Committees was dated on August 12, 2019, the same day he received the whistleblower’s spy’s complaints hearsay allegations...
Yes, and I asked you to provide a link to your document "proving" this ridiculous allegation. I'm still waiting.
I'm not saying the ICIG was correct in his assessment or that the the complaint met all of the criteria to be transmitted. Clearly many legal experts in the Administration didn't think it did so the ODNI didn't send it over!
This blew up because the existence of the complaint became known, not because of procedural problems by Atkinson.
I am STILL waiting for YOU to use Eric Ciamarella’s name, semimojo. You can’t bring yourself to use it in context.
You're confusing documents and events and they appear to be all jumbled up in your mind.
I am not at all confused, semimojo. The only one confused here and trying desperately to confuse matters is YOU. Your confused timeline is just another effort to do that very thing. Here is a corrected timeline:
Why are you such a Schiff fan? You seem to believe everything that comes out of the Dem talking points. I still think you are a Dem shill.
First:
August 12th — the ICIG Atkinson, as the Meta Data shows, writes his letter of complaint to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Oversight standing committees, asserting improper handling of the complaint by the DNI and DOJ for political reasons, two weeks before he could possibly have done any investigation on the complaint, or known about any improper handling.
Let's examine this claim. You're saying that in one day ICIG:
Why did he do this heroic feat in no more than 18 hours? What did he have to gain by causing a huge fuss in the office of the ICIG and drawing his staff and counsel into his fraud?
Absolutely nothing.
He would have been much better off taking advantage of the next 27 days to get all of his ducks in a row, draft the letter in an organized way, be able to respond to actual events, etc., etc.
But no, in the best traditions of conspiracy theory we don't ask the actors to be rational. They don't do what's in their best interests, they do what fits our narrative.
I've asked you twice for links to the document that proves your claim. You've ignored both requests.
If what you've discovered is true you have completely demolished the credibility of Atkinson and provided Trump with a political WMD.
You've discovered something that's been missed by every other news organization in the world (well, there may be a blog out there somewhere...)
You'll be on the FReeper wall of fame, probably above Buckhead.
All we need is the metadata from that original letter, which you've analyzed.
Second:
September 9th...Atkinson forwards the entire complaint package to House Committee Chairman Schiff and Senate Committee Chairman Barr, along with his August 12th pre-written (meta data proof) letter
This is another earth shattering discovery.
Every source I can find says the specifics of the complaint weren't released until September 25th.
Can you please provide some links to back up your claim that Atkinson sent the complaint to Schiff and Barr?
Can you speculate on why, if they got the complaint package on the 12th, on September 25th:
"Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr told reporters his committee had received the whistleblower complaint shortly after 4 p.m. Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and party leaders streamed in and out of a secure hearing room on Capitol Hill late Thursday afternoon to examine the document, which one lawmaker said was 10 to 12 pages long."
In actual fact, the ICIG only stated he found the complaint to be “credible” and of “urgent concern,” but also that found the complainant to be “biased.” He did not actually state he found the complainant had “direct knowledge” as semimojo has repeatedly asserted, which the ICIG Form-401 and regulations at the time of filing REQUIRED be present for the complaint to be accepted by the ICIG’s office.
Toward that end, I have again gone through Eric Ciamarella’s filed, and now de-classified, complaint line-by-line, allegation-by-allegation, seeking any allegation of Direct Knowledge by the so-called “Whistleblower” that would have justified the ICIG’s acceptance of this complaint’s validity or credibility. I found not one single assertion, allegation, or statement that indicated Eric Ciamarella had direct knowledge of the events from his own observation of events, witness, or experience that justified in any way the adoption of this complaint.
I copied and pasted the source phrases Eric Ciamarella’s, or the WB’s, own words leading into to each and every allegation in the document so you can see for yourselves where he attributes his allegations:
CLASSIFIED SECTION:
That’s all of them. . . Not a single instance where the complainant, Eric Ciamarella, or the WB, asserts a single direct knowledge complaint. It’s ALL hearsay, rumor, second-hand, third-hand, and innuendo based on absolutely no direct evidence except the obvious evidence of a desire to make trouble. Not once does the complainant say “I saw, heard, or observed X.” It is always “I was told this” by unnamed other persons. Hearsay, which is not admissible evidence in any court in the USA.
How could his allegations be found by the ICIG to be “credible,” much less within the ICIG’s jurisdiction, given the very explicit statutory exclusions in the law, which the ICIG had to be very familiar, unless the ICIG was complicit in this script.
It is my assertion that the WB, Eric Ciamarella, committed perjury by checking off the box on the Form-401 claiming he had “Direct Knowledge” and not just second hand knowledge from co-workers, especially since the form warned that such second-hand knowledge and rumors was insufficient for the complaint to be accepted and would be rejected. He filed it under threat of perjury anyway with complete awareness and knowing he did not have any first hand information. It was deliberate. It was also deliberate that ICIG Atkinson accepted it, and then passed on a fraudulent complaint, even after his own career legal counsel, the DNI’s determination, and the DOJ’s legal counsel ALL told him he could not do what he finally did, which was to send the complaint to Congress, to Intelligence Oversight committees which did not have authority over the President. It is my assertion this was scripted in advance by Adam Schiff-for brains.
Why did he do this heroic feat in no more than 18 hours?AS SHOWN ABOVE, HE DIDN’T NEED TO DO IT IN YOUR STRAWMAN 18 HOURS.
What did he have to gain by causing a huge fuss in the office of the ICIG and drawing his staff and counsel into his fraud? HE DIDN’T DRAW ANY ”STAFF OR COUNSEL” INTO HIS FRAUD. You keep asserting "facts not in evidence" which are completely false, erecting huge straw crowds. As pointed out above, his staff career counsel issued an opinion that the ICIG had no jurisdiction. He ignored that opinion.
What did he have to gain? Use your head for something other than keeping your hat on, semimojo! He’s a Obama administration hold-over. He’s Deep State. He’s what I’ve told you before, multiple times, he’s playing a role in this drama written by Schiff! WAKE THE HELL UP AND OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE INEXPLICABLE ACTIONS ICIG MICHAEL ATKINSON HAS TAKEN TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN!
He changed the regulations outside of normal regulatory procedures. He changed FORM-401 without going through normal approval processes, in the absence of even an acting DNI. He backdated both regulations and the new, unnumbered claim form to some amorphous time in August from their actual release date in late September. He obfuscated the ICIG law, claiming the whistleblower portion of that statute somehow doesn’t prohibit hearsay, or second- or third-hand knowledge for filing reports, merely because it fails to specifically exclude them, when all jurisprudence in the US is built on only allowing direct knowledge testimony, and all such laws are built on that established and well understood, legal background.
Shill
“Democrats have made up stories”
Agree! Balsey Ford’s fabricated testimony was a fictitious version of Kavanaugh’s friend’s book.
Yes. I’ve seen it. I posted it on FR. It was written as an attorney prepared legal document, with double spaced numbered lines, with copious legal single spaced footnotes. Counting Atkinson’s three page single spaced cover transmission letter, it’s about eleven pages.
So, semimojo, you now admit you’ve never even read Exhibit #1? Have you even read Exhibit #2, the President Trump - Zelensky call transcript?
If you can find one of those assertions please produce it. I've tried to be careful to say that the WB claimed, by checking the germane box on the form, that he had direct knowledge.
You may be right that he perjured himself, I don't claim to know and if I got sloppy and wasn't clear enough I'm sorry.
He did not actually state he found the complainant had “direct knowledge” as semimojo has repeatedly asserted
Except for this part where he says:
"The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”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, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.
I know it's a subtle distinction but when I say the ICIG claimed something I'm not attesting to the veracity of his claim.
Wait a minute.
Previously you've said
"August 12th — the ICIG Atkinson, as the Meta Data shows, writes his letter of complaint to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Oversight standing committees"
Now you're saying that some elements, like the date at a minimum, were added later.
What, exactly, was written on August 12th and when were subsequent edits made.
You know, this would be a lot easier if you would produce the document with the metadata that proves your assertion.
If you are wondering about the date issue, that’s easy. Anything sent to Intelligence Oversight committees is by law classified. The Chairmen and ranking members see it and until hearings are scheduled even other members may not see it, limiting the potential for leaks. Ever hear of the "Gang of eight?” That is who get to be privy on such intelligence. The two top leaders of each chamber and the chair and ranking member of each chambers’ intelligence committee. Total, eight people.
On the afternoon of the 25th, President Trump unclassified the call and the complaint, now all congressmembers could read both. Try to learn facts. . . Not assume things.
And the part where Barr says they got it on September 25, not the 9th as you claim?
Every change made to a document is kept in meta data. Dated. It’s known. Why would Atkinson even start prepping a letter to the Congressional Oversight Committees on the very day he received the complaint, when THAT’S NOT PART OF HIS JOB? According to the statute creating his position, he hands his report to his boss, the DNI, who then makes the final determination based on that report and other factors and it’s the DNI who sends or does not forwards the complaint to Congress. It’s explicit in the statute!
So, semimojo, can YOU explain why Atkinson was writing a letter to both Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committee chairmen on the complaint as an urgent concern just moments after receiving it, before he could possibly know its credibility, disposition, or even veracity of any allegations in it, unless there were some pre-planned script that was triggered by his receipt of that complaint. . . when forwarding such a complaint was not among his normal job description duties?
Just a day ago you were arguing vociferously that it was not ICIG Michael Atkinson who forwarded the WB’s complaint to Congress despite his own testimony and public admission.
Today, you are desperately trying to recast the timeline to move the arrival of that full complaint to much later than when it was actually released and somehow remove Atkinson from any responsibility, again despite Atkinson’s own admission, you are claiming he merely revealed the existence of an "urgent concern" and falsely asserting that Schiff had to subpoena the WB’s, Eric Ciamarella’s, complaint from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on September 12th.
You nitpick every fact, trying to find a strawman, but I don’t play with straw. Facts are facts. You don’t like facts.
Where are you going to do your shilly little puppet dance next? It’s getting really amusing.
Why are you being so protective of Atkinson? You are willing to close your eyes and look the other way to obvious malfeasance in office, abuse of power, criminal alteration of government forms, and essentially legislation by a bureaucratic fiat, changing a clear meaning of the law in what is the equivalent of an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, that also enables the bureaucrat’s authority to go after a single person, not to mention abuse of the law under color of authority? This is how tyranny grows. . . but you cover your eyes, ears, and do everything in your power not to speak of these abuses or to utter the name Eric Ciamarella, marching in lockstep with the progressive liberal Democrats.
What part of "got permission" to reveal the UNREDACTED fully unclassified complaint that any Congress member other than the Gang of Eight can read, do you fail to grasp?
No, I can't explain. In fact, I can't believe it and don't find your argument that "it's known" to be compelling.
I understand about metadata and I also understand that it can be lost or altered as files are converted - from Word to PDF for example.
Your unwillingness to produce the files to back up your claims is beginning to smell fishy.
Just a day ago you were arguing vociferously that it was not ICIG Michael Atkinson who forwarded the WB’s complaint to Congress despite his own testimony and public admission.
I still argue that. Every report I've seen says the complaint wasn't given to anyone in Congress before September 25th.
Provide a source to show that I'm wrong.
Why are you being so protective of Atkinson?
I'm protective of reason. Your half-baked theories don't make any sense - they lack motive - and your unwillingness to back up your extreme claims with any documentation is revealing.
Just trying to help out those who want to approach this situation in an informed way.
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.