Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[Sam]

Nearly all conversations Trump has with foreign leaders have been moved due to how they were being regularly leaked during the early part of his Administration.

The administration doesn't get to use the codeword server for anything it wants just because it wants to avoid staff problems. That's an abuse of the system and it degrades the system's security; not least because the system, like Clinton's private server, is now ripe to be considered evidence in a lawsuit or criminal proceeding. People who otherwise shouldn't have access will now have to sift through at least parts of the server.

It's also arguably obstruction of justice, if the Trump admin hid documents on the codeword server that were required to be turned over to the Mueller investigation's team.

--Sam

[Sam]

Could you please comment in light of this article?

Specifically,

Yes, it's disinformation.

The statute determines the qualifications for whistleblowing and the statute doesn't require "firsthand knowledge". Moreover, as I linked earlier, the "old" ICIG form included both "direct" and "indirect" knowledge of an abuse as legitimate basis for complaints. I linked earlier to George Conway (who adds in Ken White), who describes why, even if the complaint relied wholly on hearsay (it doesn't) and even if the complaint's content wasn't found credible by the ICIG during the course of his review, hearsay evidence can still sufficient to begin an investigation into administrative wrongdoing, since there are various exemptions to hearsay rules.

The folks at The Federalist know this. They're just hoping other folks don't ... or are, at least, willing to overlook. See how many people here are calling for an investigation into Biden on even -less- than hearsay suddenly nitpicking at whether the whistleblower had "firsthand" knowledge of an abuse.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

The administration doesn't get to use the codeword server for anything it wants just because it wants to avoid staff problems.

Says who?

[Mountain Man]

Yes, it's disinformation.

The statute determines the qualifications for whistleblowing and the statute doesn't require "firsthand knowledge". Moreover, as I linked earlier, the "old" ICIG form included both "direct" and "indirect" knowledge of an abuse as legitimate basis for complaints. I linked earlier to George Conway (who adds in Ken White), who describes why, even if the complaint relied wholly on hearsay (it doesn't) and even if the complaint's content wasn't found credible by the ICIG during the course of his review, hearsay evidence can still sufficient to begin an investigation into administrative wrongdoing, since there are various exemptions to hearsay rules.

The folks at The Federalist know this. They're just hoping other folks don't ... or are, at least, willing to overlook. See how many people here are calling for an investigation into Biden on even -less- than hearsay suddenly nitpicking at whether the whistleblower had "firsthand" knowledge of an abuse.

--Sam

You guys are trying to act like nothing was changed between the old and new rules, which begs the question: why was the change made at all if it supposedly didn't actually change anything? And why did the "whistleblower" wait until after the change to come forward? Does "indirect evidence" include office rumors and idle gossip? The word "evidence" suggests something rather stronger, which is why the rules had to be weakened to include "heard from others".

[oxmixmudd]

You guys are trying to act like nothing was changed between the old and new rules, which begs the question: why was the change made at all if it supposedly didn't actually change anything? And why did the "whistleblower" wait until after the change to come forward? Does "indirect evidence" include office rumors and idle gossip? The word "evidence" suggests something rather stronger, which is why the rules had to be weakened to include "heard from others".

Clarification. It is not uncommon to change a form if it becomes clear the same question is asked over and over again by the people using the form.

The kind if "heard from others" in the report is not 'gossip' or 'office rumors', but very serious compromises of the power and responsibility of the office of the President of the USA.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

The kind if "heard from others" in the report is not 'gossip' or 'office rumors'...

Given the number of things the "whistleblower" exaggerated or just got flat out wrong, I'm not sure what else we could reasonably conclude. It's why firsthand knowledge should be, and until recently was a requirement for this sort of thing.

[JimL]

Given the number of things the "whistleblower" exaggerated or just got flat out wrong, I'm not sure what else we could reasonably conclude. It's why firsthand knowledge should be, and until recently was a requirement for this sort of thing.

More importantly, given the number of things that whistleblower got right, nearly everything, it's telling that you guys are arguing over process rather than the facts revealed.

[oxmixmudd]

Given the number of things the "whistleblower" exaggerated or just got flat out wrong, I'm not sure what else we could reasonably conclude. It's why firsthand knowledge should be, and until recently was a requirement for this sort of thing.

Swatting at gnats and swallowing camels. As far as I've seen so far, nothing of substance has been wrong. And given the fact this is the compiled testimony of several eyewitnesses, if everything were exactly precisely correct, that would itself be suspicious. Eyewitnesses rarely agree perfectly on the details.

The simple facts are: trump held back funds. Trump clearly tied the investigation of Biden and bidens son to access to those funds. This is a clear abuse of power and violation of the law. Not to mention the fact he's holding over the barrel the leader of a country formerly tied to the Soviet Block that wants to embrace western democracy, the US, and NATO

The fact you are defending Trump in this once again shows that you will follow him and support him no matter how low he goes, no matter what crime he commits.

Jim

[seer]

Says who?

I bet this is all a head fake because they know IG report on FISA abuses is coming out...

This was reported Sept.13


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj...torney-general

[Mountain Man]

As far as I've seen so far, nothing of substance has been wrong.

You've proven that you can't see much beyond your hatred strong dislike for President Trump.

The simple facts are: trump held back funds. Trump clearly tied the investigation of Biden and bidens son to access to those funds. This is a clear abuse of power and violation of the law. Not to mention the fact he's holding over the barrel the leader of a country formerly tied to the Soviet Block that wants to embrace western democracy, the US, and NATO

The simple facts are: nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of our government's internal decision to temporarily withhold funds, Trump never mentioned it or even alluded to it during the phonecall, and both President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko are on the record saying they did not feel pressured, so...

[oxmixmudd]

You've proven that you can't see much beyond your hatred strong dislike for President Trump.


The simple facts are: nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of our government's internal decision to temporarily withhold funds, Trump never mentioned it or even alluded to it during the phonecall, and both President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko are on the record saying they did not feel pressured, so...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/preside...ce-11569254230

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Zekenski's comment can be attributed to acute awareness of the fact Trump is still in control.

Right. This is one of those "truth over facts" moments, isn't it?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/preside...ce-11569254230

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

They are lying so as to not upset Mr Mob Boss.


Jim

[JimL]

You've proven that you can't see much beyond your hatred strong dislike for President Trump.


The simple facts are: nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of our government's internal decision to temporarily withhold funds, Trump never mentioned it or even alluded to it during the phonecall, and both President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko are on the record saying they did not feel pressured, so...

What difference does that make? You're grasping for straw, MM. Whether Zelensky knew or not, though I'm sure he did, had nothing to do with the conversation. Zelensky asked for the military aid, and Trump said, but I need a favor from you though. The extortion charge doesn't depend on whether Zelensky knew the finacial aid was already appropriated for Ukraine and that Trump was holding it up, or not. It's extortion in either case. The blocking of those funds was also a breach of our national security and the national security of our ally, Ukraine, in the face of their ongoing war with Trumps buddy, V Putin and Russia.

[rogue06]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/preside...ce-11569254230

Jim

We should always prefer conspiracy theories rather than accepting that he's simply telling the truth.