Schiff Targets Political Rival, Journalist

[JimL]

Why do you say dumb stuff that you have to come back and say "it doesn't matter". If it "doesn't matter", why do you bring it up in the first place?

Sheesh! Try to follow the argument at least, CP. The point is that Schiff had no first hand access to the info in the complaint. So once again, please, instead of sounding like a dummy, explain what your argument is with respect to Schiff, if you actually have one.

[JimL]

You do realize that you're now alleging that Schiff is implicated in at the least a major ethics violation and at worst an actual conspiracy. Might wanna stop digging now.

Explain yourself.

[JimL]

You don't know that. Yeah, I know, it doesn't matter.

Only White House staff had access to what goes on in the White House. Again, do you think Schiff just made it up and then it magically came true?

[Cow Poke]

Only White House staff had access to what goes on in the White House.

And the White House NEVER leaks.

Again, do you think Schiff just made it up and then it magically came true?

What do you mean "again"?

[Cow Poke]

Sheesh! Try to follow the argument at least, CP.

This kind of nonsense is not necessary, Jim -- I'm treating you like an adult.

[JimL]

And the White House NEVER leaks.

Leaked or not, (what do you think the whistleblower is doing) it came from the White House, that's the point. Damn, I hope you're just acting dumb.

What do you mean "again"?

I've asked you what your underlying theory is with respect to Schiff, Tell us what you think may have gone on, and how it makes a difference with respect to the complaint.

[Cow Poke]

Leaked or not, (what do you think the whistleblower is doing)

leaking

it came from the White House, that's the point. Damn, I hope you're just acting dumb.

And here I was just going to complement you on how much better you've been behaving lately.

I've asked you what your underlying theory is with respect to Schiff,

He's a liar and a coward.

Tell us what you think may have gone on, and how it makes a difference with respect to the complaint.

Actually, Jim - none of it seems to make any difference --- it's going down on entirely partisan lines, and it won't make it past the Senate.

[Teallaura]

Explain yourself.

You're proving that Schiff DID have prior knowledge.

[Teallaura]

Only White House staff had access to what goes on in the White House. Again, do you think Schiff just made it up and then it magically came true?

No, he had prior knowledge of the complaint which got a few things right, and a lot wrong. In case you forgot, your argument is that Schiff didn't have prior, improper, knowledge.

FYI: If Schiff had prior knowledge, there is a leaker, not a whistleblower.

[Teallaura]

Leaked or not, (what do you think the whistleblower is doing) it came from the White House, that's the point. Damn, I hope you're just acting dumb.



I've asked you what your underlying theory is with respect to Schiff, Tell us what you think may have gone on, and how it makes a difference with respect to the complaint.

1) It invalidates the whistleblower complaint because those regulations require that the supervisor be notified first - and strictly prohibit releasing information outside the agency by the whistleblower prior to the formal complaint.
2) It brings Schiff's actions into question - it's a major ethics violation by itself. But since Schiff lied initially and the complaint shows clear signs of coaching, it also opens the question of criminal intent.
3) It and Schiff's subsequent actions are clear abuses of office.

It common parlance, it's corruption within the Democrat effort to remove a president.

[Sam]

1) It invalidates the whistleblower complaint because those regulations require that the supervisor be notified first - and strictly prohibit releasing information outside the agency by the whistleblower prior to the formal complaint.
2) It brings Schiff's actions into question - it's a major ethics violation by itself. But since Schiff lied initially and the complaint shows clear signs of coaching, it also opens the question of criminal intent.
3) It and Schiff's subsequent actions are clear abuses of office.

It common parlance, it's corruption within the Democrat effort to remove a president.

(1) is false; you're not referencing the "regulations" (it's a law) and there's nothing in the law that says a whistleblower must first talk to ICIG. A whistleblower dealing with classified information must report to ICIG if he or she is going to discuss classified information but that's it. That's the purpose of the law, in fact -- to provide a lawful pathway for whistleblowers in the intelligence community to provide classified information when making a complaint.

(2) is false. If a whistleblower approaches HPSCI staff with non-classified information regarding a complaint and HPSCI staff both tell the whistleblower how to properly file a complaint with classified information and inform the chairman, that's not a "major ethics violation". That's what is supposed to happen. I am unaware of Schiff ever saying that his staff did not have that preliminary contact with the whistleblower. You'd need to cite a source but, otherwise, we're talking about an omission, not a lie ... and a significantly less concerning omission than Nunes' omission regarding his conversations with Parnas and Giuliani at key moments in the investigative time line.

(3) is false and it's unnecessary to refute what is simply postulated as a counter-assertion of "No, you're abusing power!" The many (changing) arguments for why Schiff has not led a lawful and normal HPSCI inquiry have been dealt with before -- including several court rulings -- but the complaint itself has never quite responded to those defeats.

--Sam

[Sam]

And it bears repeating that the whistleblower cannot be a "leaker" in the common parlance because leakers are people who reveal or release unauthorized material outside of proper channels.

There's no authorization required for telling HPSCI staff in vague terms about a potential complaint and the complaint itself progressed through proper channels (until the Trump administration unlawfully withheld it). Both ICIG and the Acting DNI have both said, including after the whistleblower's discussion with HPSCI staff became public knowledge) that the whistleblower acted appropriately and lawfully and that s/he would be protected as the law requires.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

(1) is false; you're not referencing the "regulations" (it's a law) and there's nothing in the law that says a whistleblower must first talk to ICIG. A whistleblower dealing with classified information must report to ICIG if he or she is going to discuss classified information but that's it. That's the purpose of the law, in fact -- to provide a lawful pathway for whistleblowers in the intelligence community to provide classified information when making a complaint.

(2) is false. If a whistleblower approaches HPSCI staff with non-classified information regarding a complaint and HPSCI staff both tell the whistleblower how to properly file a complaint with classified information and inform the chairman, that's not a "major ethics violation". That's what is supposed to happen. I am unaware of Schiff ever saying that his staff did not have that preliminary contact with the whistleblower. You'd need to cite a source but, otherwise, we're talking about an omission, not a lie ... and a significantly less concerning omission than Nunes' omission regarding his conversations with Parnas and Giuliani at key moments in the investigative time line.

(3) is false and it's unnecessary to refute what is simply postulated as a counter-assertion of "No, you're abusing power!" The many (changing) arguments for why Schiff has not led a lawful and normal HPSCI inquiry have been dealt with before -- including several court rulings -- but the complaint itself has never quite responded to those defeats.

--Sam

I'm right. Nyah.

[Sam]

It does seem more than a little revealing that folks hectoring JimL to substantiate his claims for pages so readily shirk from discussion when presented with a substantive rebuttal. Not quite sure what post-truth Christianism will look like when it's fully mature but its adolescent phase isn't inspiring hope.

--Sam

I'm right. Nyah.

[Teallaura]

It does seem more than a little revealing that folks hectoring JimL to substantiate his claims for pages so readily shirk from discussion when presented with a substantive rebuttal. Not quite sure what post-truth Christianism will look like when it's fully mature but its adolescent phase isn't inspiring hope.

--Sam

Jim is a big boy and can argue all by himself. Lately, you jump in to defend rather than to take up a particular point. Probably not explaining it well but it annoys me that you keep trying to answer for other people, usually Jim, while I'm talking to them. Sure, we all do it sometimes but you're doing it all the time now.

So until I stop being so annoyed about it - regardless whether it's even a fault - I'm not playing with you because gouging out virtual eyeballs is somehow bad and I'm finding this nails on a chalkboard sonata annoying enough to consider it.