Replies

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?

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:

over-stepped his authority,
stepped outside of his legal jurisdiction,
moved outside of his statutory bounds,

To give his imprimatur of the Intelligence Community Inspector General Position to the so-called whistleblower to a case where he has:

no legal authority,
no legal jurisdiction,
no statutory right to even investigate,

Which he then proceeded to ignore:

his own chain of command,
his own statutory line of authority,
every ruling from those with authority higher than his

So that he could:

arrogate to himself power he did not have,
make a decision that TRAMPLED all over Executive Privilege
so he could send the case to Congressional Review that was outside THEIR PURVIEW.

Had ICIG Atkinson not done all that, and just obeyed the statutory law controlling his job as written, and his duty to obey the law and constitution, not the Deep State, we would not now be in the midst of a Constitutional Crisis, looking at a TRUMPED UP IMPEACHMENT TODAY!