mcmoustache wrote: » The talking point about the whistleblower having second hand infornation is kind of retarded when the WH admits to all of the allegations. I don't fully understand why people are using that approach to defend Trump.
Overheal wrote: » Dems position is politically weak while Republicans control the vote in so many states through suppression tactics. They’re much more vulnerable when the GOP uses blatant disinformation against them too: the lie is already around the world before the truth gets its pants on.
noel1980 wrote: » Pretty interesting... watch from 02:00 if you're in a hurry
Danzy wrote: » Exactly, this is why Pelosi did not want to help Trump or the Gop further. She lost out and has to go along.
Overheal wrote: » Your post belongs in the Conspiracies forum.
noel1980 wrote: » Haha Who's this "Gemma O'Doherty" anyway?:p
Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge 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. The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.” The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed. The complaint alleges that President Donald Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president. In his complaint, which was dated August 12, 2019, the complainant acknowledged he was “not a direct witness” to the wrongdoing he claims Trump committed. A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected. “The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,” the previous form stated under the bolded heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.” “This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing.” “If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA,” the form concluded. Markings on the previous version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form show that it was formally approved on May 24, 2018. Here is that original Disclosure of Urgent Concern form prior to the August 2019 revision: Here is the revised Disclosure of Urgent Concern form following the August 2019 revision: The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.” The repeated references to information the so-called whistleblower never witnessed clearly run afoul of the original ICIG requirements for “urgent concern” submissions. The change to the “urgent concern” submission form was first highlighted on Twitter by researcher Stephen McIntyre. The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations. “I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the respective chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers. It is not known precisely when the August 2019 revision to the whistleblower complaint form was approved, nor is it known which, if any, version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the complainant completed prior to addressing his complaint to Congress. Reached by phone on Friday afternoon, a Director of National Intelligence official refused to comment on any questions about the secret revision to the whistleblower form, including when it was revised to eliminate the requirement of first-hand knowledge and for what reason.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Hhhhmmmm, all just a coincidence I'm sure.
Atkinson was tapped by Trump for the role in late 2017, but his nomination was held up for months by senators demanding information from then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats about the ouster of the leader of a whistleblower protection office. The position of intelligence community watchdog requires Atkinson to maintain a “sort of a dual loyalty to the executive branch and to Congress,” said Steven Cash, a lawyer and former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats. During his confirmation hearing, Atkinson committed to keeping lawmakers apprised of significant complaints, to protecting whistleblowers and to approaching the position with an air of independence. “I think that my training as a prosecutor helps in terms of having a commitment to independence and integrity, as well as discipline and understanding that there is a need to speak truth to power,” Atkinson told Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “The hard part sometimes is finding the truth. The truth, as a prosecutor in a criminal case, it’s difficult. I expect it’ll be even more difficult dealing with secret organizations.” “So I certainly appreciate the challenge that is out there for me,” he continued. “But in terms of the independence and integrity required of the position, I think my training as a prosecutor will come in very handy.” Atkinson was confirmed in May 2018 and has quickly earned praise for working closely with Congress and addressing concerns over dysfunction in the intelligence community inspector general’s office, which at the time of his confirmation had been the subject of critical reporting.
If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process thecomplaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
NRA denies discussing 'special arrangements' with Trump in return for its support The National Rifle Association confirmed that CEO Wayne LaPierre met with President Donald Trump at the White House on Friday, but denied any discussions took place about "special arrangements" involving their ongoing support of the president. The response came after the New York Times reported on the meeting Friday, stating Trump and LaPierre "discussed prospective gun legislation and whether the N.R.A. could provide support for the president" amid upcoming impeachment proceedings and his reelection campaign. “The NRA is not inclined to discuss private conversations with the President,” an NRA spokesman said in a statement. “However, many of the accounts of the meeting, as reported in The New York Times, are inaccurate. The NRA categorically denies any discussion occurred about special arrangements pertaining to the NRA’s support of the President and vice versa.” The Times' original reporting, which was later updated, stated LaPierre offered "financial support for the president's defense" if, in return, Trump committed to "stop the games" on gun control legislation. The Times further reported that "It was not clear whether Mr. Trump asked Mr. LaPierre for his support, or what that support would look like." It remains unclear what any "special arrangements" referred to in the NRA's statement meant.
suicide_circus wrote: » i'm sure this impeachment will work. just like when the russian collusion thing worked.
Danzy wrote: » Re-elected in 2020.
Dems are gifted at putting forward candidates that make a New York billionaire seem relatable to the ordinary worker.
Overheal wrote: » Also you call it a Mafia style shakedown: but what was demanded in the letter? Where is the coercion? What were they pressuring the Ukraine with?
Trump celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month is like Mike Pence celebrating Pride month
Boggles wrote: » Brilliant.
Danzy wrote: » He has done a lot of good work for Hispanic Americans.
Why President Trump will enjoy success with Hispanics in 2020 A Census Bureau report released this month reiterates what we already know, which is that Hispanics have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the economy under Donald Trump. Both the president and Republicans in Congress should leverage this critical Hispanic economic success to maximize their chances of winning in the election next year. Census data reveals Hispanic median income reached a record high in 2018. The poverty rate for Hispanics fell to a record low of 17.6 percent. The poverty rate among Hispanic women households with no spouse present fell by 4.0 points and by 7.1 points for their children. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently reported that Hispanic wages grew by a healthy 3.3 percent over the last year, while the Hispanic unemployment rate currently stands at another record low of 4.2 percent. According to the nonpartisan organization known as the Latino Donor Collaborative, Latinos are the “new face” of the American workforce, comprising about 70 percent of the recent surge in growth. Hispanics are cashing in on their economic success by achieving the American dream of home ownership. Though they make up just one-fifth of the national population, Hispanics made up nearly two-thirds of the net home ownership gains in 2018. Can Republicans turn this economic success into Hispanic votes next year? Doing so could be the key to holding Senate seats in Arizona and Colorado, as well as repeating a Trump victory in Florida. The Hispanic shares of these state populations are 32 percent, 22 percent, and 26 percent, respectively. Republicans should also get an assist in their Hispanic outreach efforts from the increasingly radical social policies proposed by Democrats. Hispanics are the most religious demographic in the country, with about five in six Hispanics identifying as Christian. That means Democratic support of late term abortions and progressive gender theories will turn off at least some potential Hispanic voters in the election. Democrats recognize they are vulnerable on the issue of the economy. They are doing everything in their power to play down the success of Trump by pretending the economy is not working for ordinary people and minorities. This approach may backfire. As Hispanics continue to flourish, they could see Democrats not only as a threat to their economic success, but also as political demagogues who are out of touch with reality. Republicans should make this case in their campaigns.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » If by brillant you meant ridiculous, then yes, it was absolutely 'brilliant'.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Danzy wrote: » He has done a lot of good work for Hispanic Americans. And some terrible things to Hispanic people.
noel1980 wrote: » It will work. They have him on tape confessing that he said "If that prosecutor isn't fired, you're not getting the money" referring to billions of dollars he was withholding if they didn't drop a case against his son. Oh wait, that was Joe Biden.
