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.
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.