The Intelligence Whistleblower protection Act did not apply to the phone call … Reposted

Schiff ciara

(The House Judicial Committee takes the matter of impeachment up Wednesday.  This procedure is the fruit  of a poisoned tree  pl )

"The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998,[1] amending the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving intelligence activities.

Under the ICWPA, an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the complaint or information to their agency’s inspector general or the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG). Within a 14-day period, the IG must determine "whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be credible, thereafter transfer the information to the head of the agency. The law then requires the DNI (or the relevant agency head) to forward the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees, along with any comments he wishes to make about the complaint, within seven days. If the IG does not deem the complaint or information to be credible or does not transmit the information to the head of the agency, the employee may provide the information directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the employee must first inform the IG of his or her intention to contact the intelligence committees directly and must follow the procedures specified in the Act.

The Act defines a matter of "urgent concern" as:[2]

  1. a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
  2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
  3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee's reporting an urgent concern.

ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a result of having made a disclosure.[3] In 2006 Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense, stated before the House Committee on Government Reform that the ICWPA is a 'misnomer' and that more properly the Act protects the communication of classified information to Congress.[4] According to Michael German with the Brennan Center for Justice, the ICWPA, "provides a right to report internally but no remedy when that right is infringed, which means that there is no right at all."[3]

According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, from 1999-2009, 10 complaints/disclosures were filed under this law, four of which were found to be credible by the relevant Inspector General. In three of these ten cases the whistleblower claimed that s/he was retaliated against: two CIA cases and one DOJ case. Subsequent investigations by the CIA and DOJ failed to find evidence of retaliation in any of these cases.[3][5]

Additional protections for national security whistleblowers are provided through Presidential Policy Directive 19 and the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.[3] For more information about whistleblowers protections that apply to the intelligence community see the "national security protections" subheading under Whistleblower protection in the United States.



"Letter from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. March 8, 2014. Retrieved November 25, 2015."


This law provides an intelligence official with a legal means within which to report misdeeds in the world of intelligence operation, funding, etc.  It has nothing to do with government activities that are not intelligence activities.  There was nothing in the now famous 25 July call between Trump and Zelensky that was intelligence business.  None. Remember – the two presidents ARE NOT intelligence officials.

IMO the complaint was and is invalid and should not have been entertained at all by the IC IG.   The original opinion by DoJ on this matter was correct.  pl

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to The Intelligence Whistleblower protection Act did not apply to the phone call … Reposted

  1. Bill H says:

    All this time we have been stepping over a dime to pick up a counterfeit dollar bill. All this furor about who the whistleblower is, was there or was there not a “quid pro quo,” was the request to investigate pertinent to the 2016 election or to the Bidens, and so forth.
    And reality is that the “whistleblower’s” report should never have been made to begin with, a fact which is so plain, so clearly out in the open, and so obvious, that it took Col. Lang to notice it.

  2. Jack says:

    The Democrats are intent on impeaching Trump. As they have shown with the vote to launch the impeachment inquiry, they’re quite happy to do it on a purely partisan party line vote. And they have the full support of the mainstream media and many in the bureaucracy including serving officers in the military. The only question IMO, is how many Republican senators will either abstain or vote to convict in the Senate trial?
    The Resistance as Barr has called them are so blind with hatred for Trump that they can’t see beyond their nose. They will now create a precedent where a House majority of one party can impeach at will the President of the opposing party while using a kangaroo court inquiry. This must lead to complete chaos for our political system that each of our adversaries would love. IMO, only the American voter can change this by stopping to vote the lesser evil and electing candidates outside the duopoly. Of course that ain’t happening in my life time as most Americans are consumed with partisan warfare on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

  3. prawnik says:

    The law doesn’t matter. The IC and courts will interpret the laws however they wish.
    This is the flip side of the fundamental problem in Sir Thomas More’s famous formulation of the law in “A Man for All Seasons”. The laws of England or any other law are of no protection to anyone if he cannot enforce them.
    Similarly, even if the laws clearly condemn a action, even if the action is wrongful, that is of no matter, if the people with power have decided that the law is to protect that action regardless of what is written.
    Moral: there is no such thing as law. There is only context.

  4. Curtis Fromke says:

    It will interesting to read what comments show up here. What is a misdemeanor?

  5. Factotum says:

    An urgent concern……….. does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.

  6. Factotum says:

    The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
    Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI investigation, was tied very closely to the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste of US taxpayer time and money.
    Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far too much.

  7. JJackson says:

    According to Michael German with the Brennan Center for Justice, the ICWPA, “provides a right to report internally but no remedy when that right is infringed, which means that there is no right at all.”[3]
    He has a point – at least Lord Chief Justice Holt thought so – and I concur.
    In Ashby v White (1702) 2 Ld Raymond 938 Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, was
    entitled under the borough charter to vote at parliamentary elections. White, a
    returning officer, maliciously refused to allow him to vote. Ashby thereupon sued
    White. Lord Chief Justice Holt (dissenting, but later vindicated by the House of Lords)
    “If the plaintiff has a right he must of necessity have a means to
    vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the
    exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to
    imagine a right without a remedy for want of a right and want
    of remedy are reciprocal. …”

  8. Upstate NY'er says:

    Isn’t the ICIG another swamp careerist?
    These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
    They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same Delaware beaches.
    They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.

  9. Eric Newhill says:

    I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don’t amount to a hill of beans in The Swamp. It’s all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then mountains of BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public buying into the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers.
    Members of the “in crowd” can do whatever they want without repercussion. If any of them ever faces consequences it’s because they fell from favor for secret reasons as opposed to the publicly announced reason, or they got sleepy and were gunned down by a newer more ambitious usurper.

  10. turcopolier says:

    You don’t get it. IMO the present impeachment inquiry is illegal because the whistleblower’s complaint should not have bben allowed under the statute. If an impeachment arrives in the senate it can be thrown out on that basis.

  11. indus56 says:

    On a separate point, is or should there be any restrictions on IGIC’s authority to change the scope of evidence to include hearsay, given the evidently limited intent of the whistleblower legislation / directives?

  12. cam says:

    The ICIG changed the definition of what a whistleblower was in order to entertain the complaint.

  13. turcopolier says:

    The essential point is that the 25 July phone call had nothing to do with intelligence matters.

  14. turcopolier says:

    There are other whistleblower statutes that might have applied but not this one.

  15. cam says:

    The problem is that this is a coup, so I don’t think what should be done is going to be of much consequence.
    They must have had a good reason for proceeding in this direction.

  16. srw says:

    Interesting, but with the horse out of the barn I bet not much changes on the impeachment wagon.

  17. K says:

    I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your take (and I always appreciate a Thomas More reference). However, I think where there is a widespread agreement amongst the population that the law is just and that it is generally applied fairly to all–in that society you empower leading voices to defend the law against would-be attackers (from either top or bottom). But today we do not have that consensus in popular opinion, not all of us believe the law is fair or evenly applied, and voices shouting for it to be abrogated are loud and growing bolder.
    Now, your moral is properly situated in its historical context.

  18. LA Sox Fan says:

    Exactly right. Here is a link to the statute, 50 USC section 3033. The statute allows for the appointment of an Inspector General who reports to and has the authority to investigate any activity that falls under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.
    While I agree that Trump’s phone call does not fall under the definition of an urgent matter that can be reported to Congress, what’s worse is that because the President’s activities cannot be investigated under this statute because the President is not under the authority of nor supervised by the DNI. Thus, the intelligence Inspector General has no authority to consider the complaint against Trump. Congress created the IG statute and placed the IG under the supervision of the DNI because under the law the IG is to investigate only problems that the DNI has the ability to rectify.
    As the President of the United States is not supervised by the DNI, the IG has no authority under this law to investigate the President’s activities under this statute. The complaint and the involvement of the IG in this matter was illegal from the start.

  19. LA Sox Fan says:

    Right. The entire purpose of the phony and improper IG complaint was to manufacture an excuse to have the matter reported to Congress where it would then be leaked to the public. It never was a proper IG complaint, but the bell cannot be unrung.

  20. LA Sox Fan says:

    You are referring to the change in the complaint form where the prior form required the whistleblower to have direct knowledge of the issue complained about while the latest version allows the whistleblower to blow the whistle using information obtained from someone else (hearsay). The statute itself neither allowed not disallowed hearsay information. I believe that the prior form should not have excluded hearsay. For example, if a foreign agent said “I’m a foreign agent and taking photos of this top secret information” to a DNI employee, that is a hearsay statement and could not be reported to the IG using the prior form. To me, that’s wrong.

  21. JJackson says:

    I do get your point, and agree, however the the legislation is deficient in that while the whistle-blower can, and should, highlight questionable behaviour in his/her department it does not seem to offer adequate cover against retribution from said department.
    “ICWPA doesn’t prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a result of having made a disclosure”
    In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act.
    If your, or my, government is breaking its own laws I would like to see a clear route for those in the know to report same to some body with the authority to act. They should be independent of the department, have the power to investigate and protect the source. Better that then dump it on Wikileaks and hope to stay anonymous.

  22. John Merryman says:

    If this goes to the Senate and they make a show of it, the effect will be to make the 2020 election a contest between Donald Trump and Hunter Biden.

  23. Factotum says:

    Democrats painted themselves into a corner.
    Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed – Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this turkey on to the senate.
    Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella – there are penalties for filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the whistle-blower law.

  24. Factotum says:

    The deep state exists to perpetuate itself. When 95% of all 2016 political contributions from the deep state went to Clinton, trump’s election created and existential crisis.
    Trump promised he would expose and cleag out the deep state – look at his major2016 campaign video speech. Those were his very first words.
    Deep state was put on notice even before the was elected. Apoplectic can be their only response. Frog brains were engaged and we have these three long awful years of deep state inflicted chaos.
    Deep state = Democrats = big public sector unions How can you have $800 billion tax dollars going to teachers union members nationwide without the teachers union deep state doing all they can to bring Trump down. Including using K-12 students as front line storm troopers.

  25. Factotum says:

    Never forget this particular “whistleblower” statute was changed at the 11th hour to suddenly allow 2nd hand reports instead of the prior first hand report requirement.
    It stunk from day one. Throw the book at the whole pack because they did not take out the penalty part of the statute for filing false reports. Go get ’em FBI.

  26. turcopolier says:

    That is irrelevant. The complaint would have been invalid as outside the law even if it had been based on first hand knowledge.

  27. turcopolier says:

    The complaint was without the law, do you understand that?

  28. turcopolier says:

    LA Sox Fan
    I will try again. The law has nothing to do with non-intelligence matters and there were no intelligence matters in the phone call.

  29. Factotum says:

    Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
    Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
    The unocntested party line tonight is this “whistle blower” busted Trump wide open as a crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
    That political message flowing from this “irrelevant complaint “is hard to overcome as the DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight – 2020 election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
    NOW can I be excused while I go throw up?

  30. Factotum says:

    The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction.
    While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony) to be the one candidate who can “bring the country together again” after Trump alone has torn it asunder.

  31. Will Smith says:

    The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ‘whistle-blower‘ complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was “blowing-the-whistle” based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie ‘hearsay‘.
    The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016 operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.
    Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
    Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
    Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.

  32. johnf says:

    O/T but there doesn’t seem any other live thread where it can be put.
    Israel is heading for a third election and is becoming politically more and more incoherent.
    Avigdor Liberman, leader of Israael’s far right secular party Yisrael Beytenu has failed in his attempts to form a government of national unity and is now denouncing the ultra orthodox parties as “anti-semitic!”
    Netanyahu continues to wobble over the void of jail.
    Gantz’s Blue and White party has, like Netanyahu and Liberman, failed in attempts to lead a government of national unity.
    I know there continues to be fighting in NE Syria and Yemen, and air attacks on Damascus, riots in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, but I suspect that a lot of M.E. leaders are using this relative calm – due to the eclipse of Bibi – to do some serious talking.
    Neo-conservatives in the US continue with his policies even if he is there no longer.

  33. JJackson says:

    I do, which is what I meant by
    “In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act.”
    The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job isn’t it?

  34. jd hawkins says:

    “They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature”.
    Unfortunately, I think you’re right.

  35. J says:

    Speaking of indictments
    Off topic for our US,
    The Israeli government is indicting Netanyahu today .

  36. John Merryman. says:

    Will Pelosi be having second thoughts when Obama is subpoenaed to testify before the Senate intelligence Committee

  37. Morongobill says:

    It seems to me that if Trump is serious about taking on the swamp, now might be a good time to strike. Surely in this whole mess, there has to be one clear cut case that he could use an excuse for strong action. Something so egregious, so requiring, dare I say, a righteous response- one involving a highly public perp walk or something similar.
    It is time to put the fear of a jury finding followed by a certain and just punishment, perhaps a stay at Epstein’s prison as a starter while awaiting a no bail trial.
    This deplorable can only hope.

  38. Aristophones says:

    I believe we are talking about the “Fruit of the poisonous tree” objection. That evidence obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the “fruit”) from it is tainted as well.
    Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just “improper”?
    And if illegal, does the “attenuation doctrine” apply here?
    “For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent intervening factor to sufficiently “attenuate” the connection between the government’s illegal discovery of the witness and the witness’s voluntary testimony itself. (United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))”

  39. Rick Merlotti says:

    Yeah, well fortunately nobody watches those debates.

  40. artemesia says:

    Does Trump have illegitimate children that he has failed to support?
    Hunter does.
    $50,000/month should cover a few Pampers.

  41. LA Sox Fan says:

    Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
    Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.

  42. LA Sox Fan says:

    Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
    However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.

  43. vig says:

    what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC’s server/”fake malware” troubles? Beyond, that I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was distributed via an Ukrainan address.
    On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware breach at all, simply an insider copying files on a USB stick.
    It seems to either or. No?
    What basics am I missing?

  44. Barbara Ann says:

    I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here, will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop the fagot pile.

  45. vig,
    There is no reason why it should be ‘either/or’.
    If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to give ‘resilience’ to their cover-up strategies, they could have organised a planting of evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
    So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual ‘false flag’ hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and ‘CrowdStrike’, if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the ‘narrative’ of GRU responsibility.
    The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty Clevenger’s attempts to exploit the clear contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the remarks by Ms. Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
    What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich’s laptop, designed as part of a ‘false flag’ operation.
    On this, see his 8 October, ‘Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence’ in Clevenger’s own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant ‘Courtlistener’ pages, and his ‘Unopposed Motion for Stay’, document 48.
    Both are short, and available without a ‘PACER’ subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about ‘Russiagate.’
    (See .)
    It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an ‘unforced error.’
    However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that what is actually at issue is a ‘ruse’, produced as a contingency plan to ensure that if it becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich’s involvement in its original form, his laptop shows ‘evidence’ compatible with the ‘Russiagate’ narrative.
    And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that ‘hard drives’ can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high.
    Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky’s ‘Debunking Rod Wheeler’s Claims’ site is back up online.
    (See )
    Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think that, while it is very helpful to have some key material available in a single place, it would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
    In particular, it would be a most helpful ‘teaching aid’, if a full and accurate transcript was made of the conversation with Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly recorded.
    What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions, and that the latter clearly engaged in ‘sleight of hand’ in relation to his dealings with the former.
    That said, the fact that Butowsky’s claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh’s FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not justify the conclusion that he is wrong.
    It is absolutely clear to me – despite what ‘TTG’, following that ‘Grub Street’ hack Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given accurate information.
    Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes were not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that, in this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
    However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time to time, fall for disinformation. (If anyone says they can always spot when they are being played, all I can say is, if you’re right, you’re clearly Superman, but it is more likely that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
    The question of whether the ‘timeline’ produced by Hersh’s FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich’s involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets ‘Russiagate.’

  46. Factotum says:

    Several loose end issues about Crowdstrike:
    1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a “Russian breach”, when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike’s method and motivation to reach the “Russian” conclusion instead.Why has that methodology been sealed?
    2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the “Russians” wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
    3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Meuller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion.
    4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone’s evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link.
    5. Indeed, let’s set out with full transparency the Ukraine -Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer – never ask a question when you don’t already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth.

  47. J says:

    While the Impeachment circus act was in gear, the Democrats were quietly reauthorizing The Patriot Act in the funding resolution keeping the government afloat for another 3 months.

  48. blue peacock says:

    I am a bit puzzled with what the Democrats are doing.
    In reading the Constitution, there’s nothing that I can see that enumerates a specific procedure on impeachment in the House. It also appears that there is no definition of what High Crimes & Misdemeanors are and it would be whatever the House says it is. It appears the House can impeach by bringing the Articles of Impeachment to the floor for a vote. Nancy Pelosi has enough votes in her caucus to pass that with just her own party votes.
    What is prompting the current process they are following? An inquiry by the Intelligence Committee, where the majority decides which witnesses can be called and there’s no opportunity for the accused to cross-examine and provide rebuttal evidence and testimony.

  49. vig says:

    sometimes literature falls into life, no doubt, but looked at more closely it often turns out to be rather mundane. On the other hand without life there wouldn’t be tales and literature.

  50. Fred says:

    Blue Peacock,
    They have controlled the media news cycle for most of the last few weeks. They are also deploying and testing soundbites. Given the news from FB, Twitter and Google to limit the ability of “political ads” to target audiences with unique adds. That’s all coordinated against Trump. The fact these hearings showed the career bureaucracy is not only out of touch with America but contemptuous of most Americans.
    The last two were prime examples. The “good immigrant” – and a woman; check a couple of boxes for democratic party declared support groups being victimized by Trump’s Tweets (now labeled attacks, kind of like the hate speech label). Then there is wonderboy Mr. Holmes. Do you think either know what’s going on in Tupelo or Topeka, or give a damn? Mr. Holmes was upset that two Ukrainians recently died in combat. That was last night in Detroit. And Baltimore. And Chicago. Of course the Dynamic Duo was working to end corruption: in Kiev.
    How about Balitmore:
    San Francisco? Well, everyone just love street defacation and petty theft not being prosecuted.
    Of course those aren’t the lives that matter to the Council on Foreign Relations crowd or those who went to that fine proletarian school: St. Andrews – in Scotland. A fine school all middle class Americans aspire too. Yep, just regular ole American’s. You are concerned about due process and evidence faked by police? Just ask some inner city black Americans if that happens in their neighborhood.
    Once Trump RIFs 90 percent of these people they can go put their skills in corruption fighting to good use in a country they all love. I’m sure these two fine examples of white privelege integrity and honest governance will have no trouble getting hired in a place like Baltimore. They hired DeRay McKesson; these well credentialed experts will have no problems at all fixing that city. It’s full of honest Americans.

  51. Barbara Ann says:

    Witches are devious and the nature of their witchcraft may only be apparent to the accusers. See how at each session the Witchfinder General takes plenty of time to explain to onlookers the nature of the witchcraft lest they mistake it for, say, a regular phone call.

  52. Factotum says:

    Democrats reluctance to go on record impeaching a popular opposition party President is what is driving this Democrat-led inquiry process – almost impeachment but not quite impeachment.
    The intent is to wound, smear, damage, distract and distort. Typical Democrat politics of personal destruction that we have seen in play now for three long painful years.
    I live in California, so we see a lot of this 24/7/365. It has been a very effective and intimidating tactic since now most Democrat central committee chosen candidates run u unopposed – no one wants to face the Democrat mean machine meat grinder.
    The only wild card is how tough Trump has been facing this onslaught down. He is our favorite schmoo doll who simply cannot be knocked down. Thank you President Trump. Winning.

  53. fanto says:

    blue peacock,
    I am also puzzled by the Democrats – soviet style show trial like, a campaign whose „face“ now is Adam Schiff. I have asked the SST commenters, in different article, why would DT be so viciously attacked by the very same supporters of Israel, who should be very grateful to him for his many actions in favor of Israel. One commenter replied that DT is not going to wage war on Iran and therefore he is not useful anymore. I disagree with that assessment, and am still puzzled by the whole theater. Adam Schiff and his show trial is playing in the hands of republicans, and the democrats will bitterly regret that they did not follow once more the mantra of Nancy Pelosi – in different context – „impeachment is off the table“.

  54. vig says:

    Crowdstrike, on first sight seems to be a company that was alerted to a longterm winning product put another way: demand product. Were I younger at the time, I might have wanted to join them provided I had the correct education for the field.
    fascinating field, anyway.
    Around the time they started I may have looked or gotten more curious about expertise in the field. Maybe earlier. If you try to do you’ll stumble across assumptions, regulated by “attribution theory”, was that the term used in the field of Information Technology too?
    Well in way it should be.
    In a nutshell, my highly loggerhead take was this: if a state or its respective institutions are attacked the assumption is heigh, let’s say 80% another state is involved. … perpetrator – target
    Now. Aren’t we familiar with the pattern. Let’s say a country’s military shot down a civilian airliner and thus whatever happens after must be a blowback?
    Now what about MH 17?
    5. Indeed, let’s set out with full transparency the Ukraine -Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed.
    What exactly you feel would be discoverable there?

  55. randal m sexton says:

    Pound the Facts ?? errr. Pound the Law ??? umm. POUND THE TABLE!!!!!!

  56. turcopolier says:

    You bet pal! You bet!

  57. Fred says:

    Huma Abedin doesn’t appear too furious with Anthony Weiner; or are they just avoiding having to testify in court because they are still married?

  58. likbez says:

    Hi Factotum,

    Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the “Russians” wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.

    Alperovich is really a very suspicious figure. Rumors are that he was involved in compromising PGP while in MacAfee( June 2nd, 2018 Alperovich’s DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams – YouTube ):

    Investigative Journalist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.

    MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the public.
    The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.

    Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal – Crowdstrike.

    In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.

    His role in what we may define as “converting DNC leak into DNC hack” (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed.
    Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with “kid gloves” may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time.
    While all this DNC hack saga is completely unclear due to lack of facts and the access to the evidence, there are some stories on Internet that indirectly somewhat strengthen your hypothesis:
    Enjoy and Happy Cyber Week shopping 🙂

  59. Factotum says:

    Depends on the meaning of conspire and/or put down – no force necessary? Thought crimes again.
    18 U.S. Code 2384?
    “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

Comments are closed.