Replies

I see you finally admit, after repeatedly denying it, that ICIG Atkinson did indeed send the complaint to the Chairmen of both the House and Senate Intelligence Oversight Committees.

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:

August 12th the ICIG receives the WB complaint;
August 26th the ICIG notifies the ODNI of the complaint and says he has deemed it "credible" and of "urgent concern";
September 9th the ICIG sends Schiff and Nunes the letter complaining that the ODNI has not transmitted the complaint to Congress. Atkinson discloses the existence of the complaint but not its contents;
September 13th Schiff issues a subpoena to the ODNI for the complaint. If, as you claim, the ICIG had sent the WB complaint to to Congress the subpoena would be unnecessary;
September 25th the White House releases the transcript of the call and declassifies the complaint;
September 26th Schiff releases the redacted complaint which was released at the direction of Trump, not the ICIG.

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.

August 12th the ICIG receives the WB complaint;

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:

August 12th — the ICIG receives the WB Eric Ciamarella’s list of hearsay and rumors (fixed it for you) ~~complaint~~;
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. He also did not send a copy of the letter to Representative Nunes. Only the oversight committees were entitled to receive any communications, the Bureaucracy does not recognize party differences, so communications are sent via the chairmen of those committees.
August 26th — at the end of the 14 calendar days specified in the ICIG Statute, the ICIG ~~notifies the ODNI of the complaint~~ delivers the entire complaint package to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for the DNI’s determination if it should be forwarded to Congress, and says he has deemed it "credible" and of "urgent concern.” (At least now you are no longer claiming the ICIG confirmed he found the complaint actually contained “Direct Knowledge.” Aha, finally, factual progress!);
August 28th — the DNI, realizing the problems with the complaint package, involves both his career Legal Counsel, who then calls the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel for their input.;
August 29th — the DNI Legal Counsel and DOJ Legal Counsel, working in concert, jointly inform Chairmen Schiff of the House and Barr of the Senate oversight committees that there is a potential “urgent concern matter,” without revealing what the matter might be, requesting more time than allowed by the seven days permitted in the statute for legal study before forwarding the matter to the oversight committees. Both chairmen grant in writing an additional SEVEN DAYS to the DOJ/DNI. The ICIG is kept in the Loop on the additional time grant.;
September 6th — Three days before the extended time expires, ICIG Atkinson is informed by the DNI, in writing, that the DNI and the DOJ have determined that the complaint is not within the ICIG’s or the DNI’s jurisdiction and ordered to drop the issue, discontinuing all investigation, and due to the factual finding that it is not an IC urgent matter as a matter of statute, and classifying the it as a matter of Executive Privilege, it is not to be forwarded to Congress as being outside of the oversight committees’ purview;
September 9th — On the morning of the day the extended time granted to the DNI and DOJ for determination, before it expired, despite the findings of his superiors, and the obvious statutorily exclusions he should know backwards and forwards, ICIG Atkinson sends his August 12th created letter to Chairman Schiff and ~~Nunes~~ Chairman Barr, ~~a letter~~ complaining that the ODNI has not transmitted the complaint to Congress. ~~Atkinson discloses the existence of the complaint but not its contents~~ (This assertion on your part is false on its face; Atkinson admits he forwarded the complaint to Congress and even testified. The transcript of his testimony is the only one Schiff has refused to release to this day.) ICIG 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 (When question on September 30th by the Senate Intelligence Committee, on why he forwarded it when committee members could find no factual first hand knowledge in the allegations, Atkinson’s answer was essentially "I did it, because I wanted to!");
September 13th — Schiff issues a subpoena to the ODNI for the complaint. If, as you claim, the ICIG had sent the WB complaint to to Congress the subpoena would be unnecessary, (A subpoena to the ODNI is not the same as having the same document, with a complaint of political wrong doing by the DNI, semimojo, and subpoenaing full documentation from the DNI is the first step in going after the DNI! That documentation subpoena was rejected. In any case, Schiff was already announcing what was in the complaint on September 10th, prior to any subpoena to the DNI! That alone proves your assertion wrong.) ;
September 25th — House Intelligence Committee Chairman opens Rules Hearing with a totally fabricated rendition of the Trump/Zelensky phone call of July 25th;
September 25th — In response to Chairman Adam Schiff’s wholesale creation of a false rendition of the content of the Trump/Zelensky phone call, late in the afternoon the White House releases the transcript of the call and declassifies the spy’s complaint;
September 26th — Schiff releases the redacted complaint which was released at the direction of Trump, not the ICIG. (I never said the ICIG released anything publicly. He sent the complaint to the House and Senate Intelligence oversight committees with Meta Data that indicates that it was created on August 12th, the same day he ostensibly received the complaint from Eric Ciamarella. Releasing those data to the committees is not public.)

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.

There have been multiple assertions by semimojo that the complaint filed by the “WB.” Eric Ciamarella, contained “Direct Knowledge” and not just hearsay, second hand, and third-hand evidence, that was furthermore found credible and also FOUND to exist by Intelligence Community Inspector (ICIG) General Michael Atkinson.

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:

I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials...
...more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me...
I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.
...multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another.
... a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me...
According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call...
The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed...
They told me that there was already a "discussion ongoing" with White House lawyers...
...they had witnessed the President abuse his office...
Aside from the above-mentioned "cases" purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House officials that no other "cases" were discussed.
Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials...
The officials I spoke with told me...
...I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl... (factually false)
I was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call. (He was not authorized to receive such a readout anymore. It was leaked to him! — Swordmaker)
... I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the phone call...
White House officials told me that they were "directed" by White House lawyers...
One White House official described this act as an abuse...
Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me by various U.S. officials...
I also learned from multiple U.S. officials that, on or about 2 August...
The U.S. officials characterized this meeting...
Separately, multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani...
...but I was told separately by multiple U.S. officials that Mr. Yermak and Mr. Bakanov intended...
...according to a public account ...
It was also publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani ...
On or about 29 April, I learned from U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation...
Around the same time, I also learned from a U.S. official that "associates" of Mr. Giuliani ...
...the above-referenced articles in Bloomberg (16 May) ...
However, several U.S. officials told me that, in fact...
The New York Times reported
...named in the 22 July report by OCCRP...
See, for example, Mr. Giuliani's appearance on Fox News on 6 April...
Starting in mid-May, I heard from multiple U.S. officials that they were deeply concerned...
These officials also told me:
That State Department officials, including. . .
...multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting...
...The Hill...
That State Department officials. . .
... ABC's George Stephanopoulos...
On 21 June, Mr. Giuliani tweeted: "New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 and alleged Biden bribery of Poroshenko...

CLASSIFIED SECTION:

According to multiple White House officials I spoke with...
According to information I received from White House officials, some officials voiced concerns internally...
According to White House officials I spoke with, this was "not the first time" under this Administration that a Presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system...
On 18 July, an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official informed Departments and Agencies that the President...
During interagency meetings on 23 July and 26 July, OMB officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this assistance had come directly from the President...
As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S. aid might be in jeopardy...

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.