The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[bwframe]

Good for you sir! Glad to hear you are not supporting those who would disarm us.

 

[nonobaddog]

I remember back when it made sense to vote based on the candidate. However these days the parties are more dominant than the candidates rendering the individual and their qualities less important and the party they "belong to" more important. Their party affiliation pretty much determines how THEY will vote so, if I want to be represented at all, that must influence how I will vote.
I don't like it either.

 

[Alpo]

That's very true and unfortunate at the same time.

In the end, I've come to vote based on the perceived character of the individual. It isn't a perfect method, but voting for a corrupt person of the "correct" party is perhaps worse than voting for almost anyone else.

 

[nonobaddog]

I would really like to agree with you.

 

[jamil]

I try to vote for the outcome I want most. So whose election will bring about the least restrictive gun laws, most individual liberty, smallest, least intrusive government. Etcetera.

Obviously, no democrats to consider. They laugh candidates off the stage for advocating any of that.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump tweeting about arresting Schiff for "treason"

Surely giving a gift to the people that call him a "fascist"

He might find a way to lose this fight with such dumb tweets.

 

[T.Lex]

Seems like Trump can only declare victory if he feels like he did something to earn it. He doesn't know how to just let Pelosi hand it to him.

 

[T.Lex]

Um... if the POTUS tweets something that might violate INGO rules, is there a gray area in which we can discuss that kind of thing, or should we all just ignore it?

 

[Alpo]

Love it!

Trump is shootered.

 

[KG1]

"Treason" is another term that has been tossed around all to haphazardly.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This has already been debunked. The whistleblower rules weren't changed, and, of course, if you look at the whistleblower statute, it never had a requirement limiting complaints to those with first-hand knowledge.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1178651638313226240

WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!

 

[nonobaddog]

Fake news, fake witnesses, fake whistleblowers, fake, fake, fake. Go dumocraps!

 

[BugI02]

This has already been debunked. The whistleblower rules weren't changed, and, of course, if you look at the whistleblower statute, it never had a requirement limiting complaints to those with first-hand knowledge.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1178651638313226240

Are you quite certain? I would like to see a citation, because I'm still seeing the opposite, like this from The Federalist:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...rement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.


Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

Since at least 2018, and maybe for considerably longer, a person making such a complaint was required to have firsthand knowledge of the matter being reported. That requirement was amended just prior to the filing of the complaint and that seems more like a co-ordinated set-up than an honest concerned citizen

Also, have you read the actual complaint?

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf

In the second paragraph first bullet point, the complainant notes that "Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort...". The phone call took place July 25th (which the complainant acknowledges elsewhere in the complaint), I believe the complaint supposedly was filed in August. Four months dates events to April, three months before the infamous phone call. That would seem to present a timeline problem

He/she also states that "However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with each other. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly"

This is one credulous person. I can see no way using his/her criteria to be certain that what he/she was seeing was corroboration or a careful scripted set-up, with her/him as the expendable part. If you can't tell who the chump is in any particular deal, it is probably you. At the very least, I would have sought whatever information I was authorized to see on whether anyone telling me this information was in a position to have first hand knowledge of the events and evaluated why they did not make the complaints themselves. The whole thing stinks of the same IC machinations that we have seen before. I would also like to know when a requirement for first hand knowledge for a whistleblower complaint was implemented (the May '18 just means it was the last known time that the requirement was still included in the complaint form, not that that was the date the requirement was implemented) and if you doubt the assertion the amended form was uploaded just days prior to the complaint being declassified, the form itself made available shows an August '19 revision date. Doesn't that seem just a little too much of a coincidence

Factor in that Adam ****** was using some of the same talking points a month before the complaint was filed and it begins to seem like a co-ordinated effort similar to Russia. Russia, Russia. Apply some of that skepticism of Trump to the other, much sketchier players in this game

If you have a good link truly debunking the assertion the whistleblower rules were changed, i really would like to see it

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Are you quite certain? I would like to see a citation, because I'm still seeing the opposite, like this from The Federalist:

I know you specified "good link", but the source doesn't matter when the facts seem to be facts.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-s...h-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-smear

The kernel of fact near the center of the conspiracy theory is that there is, indeed, a new version of Form 401 dated August 2019.

A question on the form explicitly anticipates tips based on secondhand information, and asks the whistleblower to check a box: “I have direct and personal knowledge,” or, “I heard about it from others.” The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story.

What the article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018, making it impossible that it was added as an easement for Trump’s whistleblower. The major difference in the fields is that the old form includes three options instead of two, subdividing secondhand sources into outside source and “other employees.”

There’s a reason the form has allowed secondhand reports all along. The requirement for firsthand whistleblowing only is completely made up.

“There’s never been a requirement that a whistleblower have firsthand knowledge of what they’re reporting,” said Irvin McCullough, an investigator at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (and the son of a former IC IG). “They need to have a reasonable belief. The firsthand information is usually gathered by the inspector general, as I believe did occur here.”

When the IC IG receives an urgent report, it has 14 days to conduct a preliminary review under the law. If that investigation produces enough direct evidence, the IC IG can rule it “credible,” which triggers the legal requirement to forward the report to the director of central intelligence (DCI), and from there to Congress.

The Federalist and supporters of the Atkinson smear also point to a two-page information sheet distributed as part of the May 2018 version of the form but not the August 2019 version. It’s unclear when it was dropped, but a paragraph in that now-excised preamble was headed, “First-Hand Information Required,” seemingly contradicting the form itself. “In order to find an ‘urgent’ concern credible, the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information,” the text read in part. “The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.”

Though the text is confusingly drafted—which may be why the entire preamble was canned—a careful reading shows it’s not erecting a new hurdle for filing a whistleblower complaint, but rather describing the type of evidence the IC IG has to gather to judge the complaint “credible” at the end of its 14-day investigation.

So it seems more like a selective framing of what one side wants the modified date to imply.

Not discounting the likely fakeness of this entire situation, but he/they are participating in a little fakeness of their own.

 

[T.Lex]

I believe the DOD guidance for whistleblowers - while not directly applicable to intelligence agencies - only dealt with "allegations" irrespective of whether they are first- or second-hand.

That has been the case for years, IIRC.

 

[BugI02]

I know you specified "good link", but the source doesn't matter when the facts seem to be facts.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-s...h-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-smear



So it seems more like a selective framing of what one side wants the modified date to imply.

Not discounting the likely fakeness of this entire situation, but he/they are participating in a little fakeness of their own.

I skimmed the source and see the changes indicated. I still would like to see an original version of the form pre-dating the Trump administration

I did notice the following reading in the body of the articles cited form, which seems problematic for this whole narrative and at odds with that same checkbox page. I have used a screenshot because I wanted a quick excerpt and hate dealing with a pdf

View attachment 80313

And that is lifted directly from what DBeast is linking as the May 2018 form

 

[BugI02]

You and T.Rex should probably search "whistleblower smear" and peruse the list of usual suspects that fill the first 3 or 4 pages, and then note the lack of any serious sources. Draw your own conclusions

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I already acknowledge this is a smear.

Doesnt make Trump's reactions to it accurate or right. But I understand he's just playing the other side of the smear.

"They're going to lie about this claim? Then I'm gonna lie about the details."

 

[BugI02]

I think it is that too many of these positions are just blurry snapshots of the 'truth'. I acknowledge Trump has a very cocktail party sort of relationship with the absolute, objective truth; but then I seldom see 'the truth' ever presented in full

If anyone wants to convince me its a smear, showing me that ICWPA form as it was constituted prior to any possible Trump meddling would go a long way; if it allowed second hand information as the basis of a complaint at that time

If it eventually shows up and 'the truth' is that first hand knowledge has been required all along until just recently. I hope you would come to the proper conclusion vis a vis 'smear' and other such loaded terms

 

[T.Lex]

https://oig.nsa.gov/Portals/71/Repo...8_FINAL 20JUL18.pdf?ver=2018-09-07-115021-997

2018 Report from NSA OIG (unlikely to be the department from which this particular whistleblower originated) does not appear to mention any requirement for first-hand information.

INVESTIGATIONS
The OIG investigates a wide variety of allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct involving NSA/CSS programs, operations, and personnel.The OIG initiates investigations based upon information from a variety of sources, including complaints made to the OIG Hotline; information uncovered during its inspections, audits, and reviews; and referrals from other Agency organizations.Complaints can be made to the OIG Hotline online, by email, regular mail, telephone, or in person, and individuals can do so anonymously or identify themselves but indicate that they wish to maintain their confidentiality.

In fact, the generic website has a general admonition:
https://oig.nsa.gov/Whistleblower-Information/

Whistleblowers play a critical role by reporting what they reasonably believe to be waste, fraud, and abuse in government operations. Under Agency policy, whistleblowers have a duty to report wrongdoing. It is critical to the work of the OIG that they report any concerns without fear of retaliation. The NSA OIG Hotline provides a mechanism for whistleblowers to make a protected communication to the OIG.
The OIG investigates all credible claims of whistleblower reprisal and has a statutory obligation to maintain complainants' confidentiality. The FISA Amendments Act of 2017 extended whistleblower protections to Intelligence Community contractors.

Having a general familiarity with other whistleblower mechanisms, it would defeat much of the purpose if first-hand information were required.

Oh, and check this out - the IG for the Intelligence Community ("IC"):
https://www.dni.gov/ICIG-Whistleblower/process-when.html

Lawful whistleblowing is getting the right information to the right people. When you have a reasonable belief that wrongdoing is occurring, you have a duty to report it.
...
Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 provides a secure means for employees to report to Congress allegations regarding classified information. The ICWPA is a statute that provides a process by which employees, or contractor employees, of IC elements can report matters of "urgent concern" to the .
An "urgent concern" is defined as:

• A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters.
• A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.
• An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee reporting an urgent concern.

Granted, this is the public-facing portal, but still no mention of direct knowledge. And in fact, there's a suggestion that any "reasonable belief" should be reported.

ETA:
From Oct 2018 - Mar 2019 semiannual report by IC IG:https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...nnual Report - October 2018 to March 2019.pdf

Whistleblowing is the lawful disclosure of information a person reasonably believes evidences wrongdoing to an authorized recipient. It is the mechanism to relay the right information to the right people to counter wrongdoing and promote the proper, effective, and efficient performance of the Intelligence Community’s mission. Whistleblowing in the IC is extremely important as it ensures that personnel can “say something” when they “see something” through formal reporting procedures without harming national security and without retaliation.