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

[BugI02]

Thank you. What I've read of the original language of the ICWPA (in the form of the bill passed by congress) and its language of implementation (DoD OIG instructions 7050.11, which implements the whistleblower act of 1989) doesn't specifically mention the requirement for first hand information

That's why I would like to know who added that requirement to the filing process and when, before I draw a conclusion on cui bono from the recent changes thereto

 

[Phase2]

Thank you. What I've read of the original language of the ICWPA (in the form of the bill passed by congress) and its language of implementation (DoD OIG instructions 7050.11, which implements the whistleblower act of 1989) doesn't specifically mention the requirement for first hand information

That's why I would like to know who added that requirement to the filing process and when, before I draw a conclusion on cui bono from the recent changes thereto

The president's call was July 25, 2019. The rule was changed from requiring first-hand knowledge to hearsay in August 2019 and the whistle blower complaint was dated August 12, 2019.

Edit: Much more complete info here.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The president's call was July 25, 2019. The rule was changed from requiring first-hand knowledge to hearsay in August 2019 and the whistle blower complaint was dated August 12, 2019.

Edit: Much more complete info here.

That's what Bug had linked earlier, and the rule did not necessarily change then. It may have been like that for a year, more or less.

 

[BugI02]

Phase2, I'm still digging (whenever my brain can tolerate further exposure to opaque legalese). In records of congressional action (both House and Senate) in 2009-2010 to further clarify what was meant to be the standard for reporting under the original framework of the WPA, the indicated criteria is that a 'disinterested observer' would find the information that became available to the complainant to be compelling (not their exact choice of word) so I would interpret that as allowing and even encouraging second hand complaints. there was some language about a circuit court ruling that the indication of wrong doing by a gov't official had to be 'irrefragible" (essentially irrefutable) but that ruling was later corrected on remand so the legislative language just re-affirmed that the original intent of the WPA and its subsequent riders was not to require such a high standard

This would seem to set a time stamp at which we know first hand knowledge was not required. I would still like to know who (or what administration) inserted the requirement for firsthand knowledge as this information would color my judgement of how this is playing out. If that requirement was inserted before Trump took power then it was done by the Obama administration, and on the one hand I would wonder if it was indicative of things that administration wanted to be less likely to be disclosed (such as information around Fast and Furious or Benghazi). I would also find the timing interesting if the requirement was inserted between the time Trump won and inauguration day, a it would make me wonder how it fit in with the other abuses by the Obama administration during that time in furtherence of Russia, Russia, Russia and Crossfire Hurricane etc

On the other hand, if the requirement was inserted by the Trump administration it would make you wonder what they wanted to keep quiet; but I could see a case for it being made, due to all the wild accusations swirling around their every activity - kind of like trying to make a big deal out of the call transcript being given a different method of classification as if that was specifically related to this instance and had nothing to do with the previous leaking of such transcripts in order to embarrass the administration or enable legal challenges to its policies. In such a case as that, I would also like to know who and when the policy changed. Only then can I judge whether it is potential cover up or a more innocent global change in relationship to previous events

I am leery of another kangaroo court of accusations from unnamed sources who 'told' this whistleblower certain things. I would like to see a hearing environment in which the people doing the telling could be named (behind closed doors if necessary) and compelled to put up or shut up about how they 'know' what they claim to know. And if they don't 'know' anything, take it the next level deeper if someone else 'told' them. Take it all the way to first sources, and if there are no first sources then they should all be fired/stripped of security clearances. I'm afraid that what we will get is a WaPo or NYT 'expose´' masquerading as a hearing

 

[Phase2]

Fair enough. I doubt it was changed recently, but it isn't an unreasonable question to ask in the current deep state war.

 

[nonobaddog]

I don't think they can successfully regulate whistleblowers. Some people will fully believe what they hear and start tooting. Some people have different personal standards of what a reliable source is. I think they need to focus regulation on the proper verification and handling of the various whistles they receive, which is how it sounds like it is to me.

 

[T.Lex]

Modern life is complicated.

Whistleblower (and the related whistleblower protection) laws are a mechanism to reduce leaks. Without a "safety valve" for people to safely report wrongdoing, they will go to the press. (There will always be some percentage that do that anyway; the realistic goal is to mitigate that risk.) By providing a way for government agencies to more or less "police themselves" government can run more smoothly.

To be clear, I'm not convinced the POTUS's conduct or conversation was even properly a whistleblower issue. At minimum, that is not the fish that these particular nets were intended to catch. If POTUS wants to declassify information, he can (even on accident). If POTUS wants to leverage common interests in foreign policy, he can.

He isn't allowed to straight up bribe or be bribed, but there does not appear to be anything like that in that conversation. (The line of the whistleblower complaint that intimates his business dealings are more successful now that he's POTUS seems to be the real lede in this whole thing.)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

“We’re trying to find out” who the whistleblower is, Trump told reporters just now.


... Isn't that actually a violation of the law? As fake as the complaint is, the whistleblower is entitled to federal protections under the law.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

House impeachment committees issue subpoena to Rudy Giuliani and his associates for documents having to do with Ukraine, Pres Zelensky, Hunter Biden, et al. Letter to Giuliani refers to him as "the president's agent." Documents due Oct 15.

 

[Phase2]

Just out of curiosity, what happens if he says no? He is supposed to be the president's personal lawyer and doesn't the president have client-attorney privilege rights like every other American?

 

[HoughMade]

“We’re trying to find out” who the whistleblower is, Trump told reporters just now.

... Isn't that actually a violation of the law? As fake as the complaint is, the whistleblower is entitled to federal protections under the law.

All I can say is that when dealing with whistleblowers (in a different, but related context in that federal law is involved) we always know who they are just becaise of the information they claim to know and if they are actually a relevant witness to something, they always get deposed or otherwise "outed".

 

[DoggyDaddy]

“We’re trying to find out” who the whistleblower is, Trump told reporters just now.


... Isn't that actually a violation of the law? As fake as the complaint is, the whistleblower is entitled to federal protections under the law.

I don't believe anonymity of the whistle blower is guaranteed, however it is unlawful for reprisals to be taken against the whistle blower. It works very much like sexual harassment complaints. The complainants' anonymity isn't protected, but they cannot be subject to disciplinary action for filing a complaint.

 

[Brad69]

Define “whistleblower” this person had second and third hand rumors to go on.
I find it magical that all the people that had 1st hand knowledge went to this person and told them about it?
Quick reminder this “whistleblower” was detailed from the CIA to the White House for just a “short” time?
How many people run up to a new temporary employee and spill your guts?

 

[nonobaddog]

If the CIA can't figure out who it is in less than an hour, that just means the CIA is full of more deep-staters.

 

[BugI02]

I don't believe anonymity of the whistle blower is guaranteed, however it is unlawful for reprisals to be taken against the whistle blower. It works very much like sexual harassment complaints. The complainants' anonymity isn't protected, but they cannot be subject to disciplinary action for filing a complaint.

But they can be watched like a hawk, and if they put one toe over the many lines in their business they can be terminated for cause. If it is an appointee, so much the better. I predict abad performance review is in the cards. Heck, his own people will probably throw him under the bus

As I said before; if you can't tell who the patsy is in any situation, that usually means it's you. Can't you just see them pumping up him/her like they're Captain America and only they can save the republic, when in reality they were chosen because they're as expendable as a Kleenex

 

[bwframe]

We are just supposed to believe all of this horse ?

The same way that for months and months on end we heard and repeated the narrative about Comey and Mueller being stellar non-political individuals that worked for various administrations?

The same way we "had to believe" the women sent to defeat the Kavanaugh appointment?

Russia, racism, recession?...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1178787236839604225

News: IC IG has posted a statement regarding its handling of whistleblower complaints.

"The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018 ..."

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

I expect Trump to continue to run with that conspiracy a little longer.

 

[T.Lex]

So, in the last couple weeks I read an interesting opinion piece by a Brit journalist who had a chance to observe an impromptu press conference by Trump. His opinion was that parts of it really were incoherent, and the MSM does an injustice by cleaning it up. I remember when the MSM would go out of their way to publicize GWB's malapropisms.

The other night, TV showed an extended clip of Trump talking about the "perfect" call with the Ukraine. It really was stream of consciousness incoherence. You could tell the thoughts were in there, trying desperately to escape, all at the same time, and they were scrambling over which words to use first.

Curiously, watch for more of that - more unvarnished Trump - as we get closer to the election. It somewhat reminds me that the MSM had much to gain from a Trump presidency.

 

[KLB]

So, in the last couple weeks I read an interesting opinion piece by a Brit journalist who had a chance to observe an impromptu press conference by Trump. His opinion was that parts of it really were incoherent, and the MSM does an injustice by cleaning it up. I remember when the MSM would go out of their way to publicize GWB's malapropisms.

The other night, TV showed an extended clip of Trump talking about the "perfect" call with the Ukraine. It really was stream of consciousness incoherence. You could tell the thoughts were in there, trying desperately to escape, all at the same time, and they were scrambling over which words to use first.

Curiously, watch for more of that - more unvarnished Trump - as we get closer to the election. It somewhat reminds me that the MSM had much to gain from a Trump presidency.

It's funny how true that is. I bet viewership has been much higher for their ranting against the literally Hitler, bad, orange man than they would have had falling all over themselves for the first female President.

 

[T.Lex]

[/B]It's funny how true that is. I bet viewership has been much higher for their ranting against the literally Hitler, bad, orange man than they would have had falling all over themselves for the first female President.

Yeah, that would've lasted about a year. First female POTUS trip abroad. First female POTUS state dinner. First female POTUS whatever. At some point, that well would've run dry.