POLL: Is It Logical To Think The Trump Whistleblower Would be in Danger if Their Identity is Known?

[Jose Fly]

Are you aware that the Democrats changed the whistle blower procedures from first hand information, to second hand information, just before they leak this to the press?

Are you aware that that team Trump talking point, like all their others, is completely false?

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

Do you care?

 

[Jose Fly]

I would like to know why a document of total hearsay constitutes something of any legal standing.

According to the complaint and the IC IG, the whistleblower had both first-hand and second-hand information. From the IC IG News Release linked above:

The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.” As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.​

I know an FBI agent that told me some bad stuff about the agency, I complain about what I heard, am I know a legal whistleblower ?

You could be. If the relevant IG receives your report and in his subsequent investigations (which should include interviews with the people who initially talked to you) reveal that the info you were given is credible, then your complaint will be found to be valid. And that's exactly what happened in this case.

I mean.....did you really think the IC IG just went by the whistleblower's say-so and nothing else?

 

[shmogie]

According to the complaint and the IC IG, the whistleblower had both first-hand and second-hand information. From the IC IG News Release linked above:

The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.” As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.​

You could be. If the relevant IG receives your report and in his subsequent investigations (which should include interviews with the people who initially talked to you) reveal that the info you were given is credible, then your complaint will be found to be valid. And that's exactly what happened in this case.

I mean.....did you really think the IC IG just went by the whistleblower's say-so and nothing else?

No, the alleged whistleblower met with Schiff before he filed the complaint.

 

[shmogie]

According to the complaint and the IC IG, the whistleblower had both first-hand and second-hand information. From the IC IG News Release linked above:

The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.” As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.​

You could be. If the relevant IG receives your report and in his subsequent investigations (which should include interviews with the people who initially talked to you) reveal that the info you were given is credible, then your complaint will be found to be valid. And that's exactly what happened in this case.

I mean.....did you really think the IC IG just went by the whistleblower's say-so and nothing else?

If he talked to others, where are the reports ? Why weren´t they disseminated in a redacted format along with the complaint ? Why wasn´t the fact that the alleged whistleblower met with schiff before he ever filed the complaint not included ?

No one knew ? If so, what does that mean to you ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the alleged whistleblower met with Schiff before he filed the complaint.

The term alleged is improper, but it appears you got the rest right:

Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

So what?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, the alleged whistleblower met with Schiff before he filed the complaint.

First, no he didn't.

Second, that has absolutely nothing to do with the points at hand (i.e., there was no requirement that a whistleblower have first-hand info, the whistleblower did have some first-hand info, and the IC IG checked into the second-hand accounts and found them credible).

 

[Jose Fly]

The term alleged is improper, but it appears you got the rest right:

Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

So what?

No, he's not correct. The whistleblower did not meet with Schiff.

 

[Jose Fly]

If he talked to others, where are the reports ? Why weren´t they disseminated in a redacted format along with the complaint ?

It is. Did you even read the complaint? Further, the IC IG interviewed the people in the WH who the whistleblower claimed told him things, and the IG found those accounts to be credible.

Why wasn´t the fact that the alleged whistleblower met with schiff before he ever filed the complaint not included ?

Because that's not true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First, no he didn't.

Second, that has absolutely nothing to do with the points at hand (i.e., there was no requirement that a whistleblower have first-hand info, the whistleblower did have some first-hand info, and the IC IG checked into the second-hand accounts and found them credible).

And urgent.

 

[metis]

The term alleged is improper, but it appears you got the rest right:

Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

So what?

Former representative Joe Scarborough (R-Fl), said that he had heard this from Ukrainian sources back in July, so there was already some information out there. Shiff seems to have known in advance of them admitting they knew, but that's not abnormal since usually both intelligence committees (House & Senate) are normally contacted prior to any arrangement to speak being established. This happens on a regular basis, and doing as such stands to logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, he's not correct. The whistleblower did not meet with Schiff.

You are right. I should have been clearer. He or she spoke with Schiff's staff according to that article. Of course that is a big "so what?" .

Also, why all the false claims that a whistleblower cannot be based on hearsay? There is no such rule. They are conflating allowable evidence in a trial with what is probable cause for an investigation. As supposedly former law enforcement @shmogie should know this. An investigation, whose job is to find evidence that can be used in a trial, or course starts with a lower standard than a trial does. Anyone with more than a potato for a brain knows this. If the evidence was already there then there would be no need for an investigation in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Former representative Joe Scarborough (R-Fl), said that he had heard this from Ukrainian sources back in July, so there was already some information out there. Shiff seems to have known in advance of them admitting they knew, but that's not abnormal since usually both intelligence committees (House & Senate) are normally contacted prior to any arrangement to speak being established. This happens on a regular basis, and doing as such stands to logic.

Yep, the complaint is a red herring.

 

[sooda]

Of the more questionable things I've heard from this recent situation was the idea that they need to protect the identity of the whistleblower to protect them from possible danger. Does anyone really think that such a high profile individual would actually be in danger of anything? I'd say it's logical to assume that this individual and Trump's actions would be under such a fine microscope that the whistleblower would basically be untouchable.

I can only imagine the conspiracy theories if something did happen to this person like what happened to Seth Rich.

Please vote and comment in the pole


"Right to confront witness

Primary tabs

Overview

The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action. This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 43). As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.
Constitutional Basis and Purpose

The Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The Clause was intended to prevent the conviction of a defendant upon written evidence (such as depositions or ex parte affidavits) without that defendant having an opportunity to face his or her accusers and to put their honesty and truthfulness to test before the jury.
In Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895), the Supreme Court enunciated the three fundamental purposes that the Confrontation Clause was meant to serve:

1. 
   
   
   • To ensure that witnesses would testify under oath and understand the serious nature of the trial process;
   • To allow the accused to cross-examine witnesses who testify against him; and
   • To allow jurors to assess the credibility of a witness by observing that witness’s behavior."

Right to confront witness | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Trump has a long 40 year history of being vengeful .. Why would you think he would suddenly change?

 

[Jose Fly]

You are right. I should have been clearer. He or she spoke with Schiff's staff according to that article. Of course that is a big "so what?" .

Exactly. The WB was concerned that the CIA was acting slowly on the complaint, so they had their lawyer ask Schiff's staffer for advice. The staffer advised the WB's lawyer that the WB should get a personal lawyer and informed them of the legal procedures to follow. *shrug*

But of course in team Trump world, this has been spun into "Schiff wrote the whistleblower report!@!!!!1111!!!"

Also, why all the false claims that a whistleblower cannot be based on hearsay? There is no such rule. They are conflating allowable evidence in a trial with what is probable cause for an investigation. As supposedly former law enforcement @shmogie should know this. An investigation, whose job is to find evidence that can be used in a trial, or course starts with a lower standard than a trial does. Anyone with more than a potato for a brain knows this. If the evidence was already there then there would be no need for an investigation in the first place.

It's just an excuse to wave away inconvenient information, no different than what creationists do (and there's a fair bit of overlap between the two groups, which explains a lot). It's like Ken Ham's "were you there" talking point.

 

[shmogie]

It is. Did you even read the complaint? Further, the IC IG interviewed the people in the WH who the whistleblower claimed told him things, and the IG found those accounts to be credible.


Because that's not true.

yes, it is true. Schiffs staffers met with the alleged whistle blower. They interviewed him at length and sent him to a lawyer to help file his claim.

This in itself isn´t the problem, it happens.

The problem is that after this meeting, when the complaint surfaced, schiff said flatly that he had no prior knowledge of the complaint.

A flat out lie.

Unless of course, you believed his staff interviewed the guy, sent him to a lawyer, then said nothing about it to the man supposedly in charge of this ¨ investigation¨ .

Further Nancy Pelosi, before congress had the complaint, was quoting it. She had to have been told by schiff exactly what the guy said, and what would be in his complaint, because he was directly told what to write.

On another point, the guy did check those infamous two boxes on the complaint, but, it is being reported that in a narrative portion, he said he had no direct knowledge of the things reported. I am trying to find that for you. If so, his lawyer did not proofread it.

On another point, the fired Ukranian prosecutor, in a sworn affadavit, states that the American Ambassador, whom he names, came to him and told him to drip the investigation of Barisma, and Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden, He was told by his own people that the investigation had to be stopped, ¨ to keep the Americans happy ".

This is almost verbatim , as to what he said, weeks ago. You will get the statement. Pay to play, clear and simple. $50,000 a month, for doing nothing, because your dad is the vice president of the US. Sweet.

 

[shmogie]

First, no he didn't.

Second, that has absolutely nothing to do with the points at hand (i.e., there was no requirement that a whistleblower have first-hand info, the whistleblower did have some first-hand info, and the IC IG checked into the second-hand accounts and found them credible).

Sure, they allow hearsay evidence. Great. However, there is a reason courts do not allow hearsay evidence. It is bad evidence, rumor at times, and twisted.

The IG found it credible. What does this mean ? Did he base his judgement on an interview with the complainer, and based on that think the story credible ? Did he interview the alleged primary sources, and find what they said credible ? Did he have a bias, that effected his view of credibility ? Where is his investigation report ? I am sure he must document his credible lain.

What is the foundation of the credible claim ? What are the standards being followed in determining credibility ?

He is not God, he cannot just know credibility when he sees it. There must be a policy for determining credibility, I want to see it and I want to know if he followed the policy.

 

[Jose Fly]

yes, it is true. Schiffs staffers met with the alleged whistle blower.

LOL....nice try. Your initial claim was that Schiff met with the WB. I guess it's progress to see you move off of that false talking point though.

They interviewed him at length and sent him to a lawyer to help file his claim.

This in itself isn´t the problem, it happens.

Yup. The WB was seeking advice and Schiff's staff gave it to them.

The problem is that after this meeting, when the complaint surfaced, schiff said flatly that he had no prior knowledge of the complaint.

A flat out lie.

Source and quote please.

Unless of course, you believed his staff interviewed the guy, sent him to a lawyer, then said nothing about it to the man supposedly in charge of this ¨ investigation¨ .

Part of the story is that Schiff was given an outline of what the complaint was about. It's interesting then that if that's true, he didn't do anything with it. He didn't leak it to the media or anything like that, and instead allowed the lawful process to play out.

Further Nancy Pelosi, before congress had the complaint, was quoting it. She had to have been told by schiff exactly what the guy said, and what would be in his complaint, because he was directly told what to write.

Again, source and quote please.

On another point, the guy did check those infamous two boxes on the complaint, but, it is being reported that in a narrative portion, he said he had no direct knowledge of the things reported. I am trying to find that for you. If so, his lawyer did not proofread it.

As I showed by citing and quoting the IC IG (a Trump appointee), the WB had both first hand and second hand information.

On another point, the fired Ukranian prosecutor, in a sworn affadavit, states that the American Ambassador, whom he names, came to him and told him to drip the investigation of Barisma, and Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden, He was told by his own people that the investigation had to be stopped, ¨ to keep the Americans happy ".

This is almost verbatim , as to what he said, weeks ago. You will get the statement. Pay to play, clear and simple. $50,000 a month, for doing nothing, because your dad is the vice president of the US. Sweet.

Again, source and quote please.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure, they allow hearsay evidence. Great. However, there is a reason courts do not allow hearsay evidence. It is bad evidence, rumor at times, and twisted.

Again you act as if the IC IG just took the second-hand info as gospel and nothing else, when the reality is that he interviewed the people who gave the WB the second hand info and found their accounts to be credible.

The IG found it credible. What does this mean ? Did he base his judgement on an interview with the complainer, and based on that think the story credible ? Did he interview the alleged primary sources, and find what they said credible ?

Yes! Good grief, you didn't know that?

Whistle-Blower Is Said to Allege Concerns About White House Handling of Ukraine Call

"The whistle-blower, moreover, identified multiple White House officials as witnesses to potential presidential misconduct who could corroborate the complaint, the people said — adding that the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, interviewed witnesses."​

Did he have a bias, that effected his view of credibility ?

Michael Atkinson, the IC IG, is a Trump appointee. You didn't know that either?

For someone who goes around making a lot of confident-sounding claims, you sure are ignorant of some very basic facts.

Where is his investigation report ? I am sure he must document his credible lain.

What is the foundation of the credible claim ? What are the standards being followed in determining credibility ?

He is not God, he cannot just know credibility when he sees it. There must be a policy for determining credibility, I want to see it and I want to know if he followed the policy.

Geez dude, are you unable to do anything yourself? CLICK HERE

Again, I'm astounding at the contrast between all the things you don't know and your extremely confident repetition of right-wing talking points.

 

[sooda]

Sure, they allow hearsay evidence. Great. However, there is a reason courts do not allow hearsay evidence. It is bad evidence, rumor at times, and twisted.

The IG found it credible. What does this mean ? Did he base his judgement on an interview with the complainer, and based on that think the story credible ? Did he interview the alleged primary sources, and find what they said credible ? Did he have a bias, that effected his view of credibility ? Where is his investigation report ? I am sure he must document his credible lain.

What is the foundation of the credible claim ? What are the standards being followed in determining credibility ?

He is not God, he cannot just know credibility when he sees it. There must be a policy for determining credibility, I want to see it and I want to know if he followed the policy.

Its not unusual for a whistleblower to seek advice and support. Happens all the time..

What we don't know is whether the whistleblower is a partisan or just a person with a conscience. I suspect the latter. CIA people are usually straight arrow much like the US Secret Service agents.

 

[shmogie]

Its not unusual for a whistleblower to seek advice and support. Happens all the time..

What we don't know is whether the whistleblower is a partisan or just a person with a conscience. I suspect the latter. CIA people are usually straight arrow much like the US Secret Service agents.

I have worked with secret service agents, they have political views, just like anyone else. I suspect the same with CIA people.