• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations

B

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
37,046
Reaction score
17,950
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.
...
The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.
...
By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.

Mr. Schiff released a letter seeking the complaint and suggested it could involve Mr. Trump or others in his administration. Mr. Schiff followed up by subpoenaing Mr. Maguire to testify before the intelligence committee.

Mr. Schiff’s intense push took Mr. Maguire and his aides by surprise, current and former intelligence officials said. In other cases of lawmakers seeking classified material that the intelligence agencies were reluctant to share, including whistle-blower complaints, both sides usually tried to resolve the matter by holding quiet discussions.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations.
Click to expand...


Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations - The New York Times


From 9/24/19

bubbabgone said:
...

But there are things we still don't know.
Like ...
If the alleged whistleblower didn't actually hear anything first-hand who told them?
Did anyone tell them?
How long has Schiff known it was all BS?
Did Schiff communicate with the alleged whistleblower before the complaint was made to the DNI and did he tell the whistleblower to use the Law even though it didn't apply?
Click to expand...

Told ya.
Schiff was the orchestrator from the get-go.
 
bubbabgone said:
Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations - The New York Times


From 9/24/19



Told ya.
Schiff was the orchestrator from the get-go.
Click to expand...

The whistleblower went to the General Counsel of the CIA before going to the House staffer and only went to the staffer after they had discovered the CIA GC went to the White House with their concerns. The staffer (not Schiff) followed policy by recommending they get a lawyer and submit it as a whistleblower complaint. The staffer relayed some information of the complaint to Schiff. Schiff never learned the whistleblower's identity and never communicated with them.

The Trump-appointed ICIG and DNI both corroborated the complaint.

Trump released a partial transcript that has matched up with everything the whistleblower has claimed thus far.

Your claims are getting more unhinged by the hour.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
Trump released a partial transcript that has matched up with everything the whistleblower has claimed thus far.
Click to expand...

Hmm, not quite.

The complaint does provide certain "excepts" which are similar if not mirror images of the conversation memorandum. But the whistleblower "complaint" analyses (or more correctly "interprets") the hearsay evidence of what was said during the conversation in order to present alleged wrongdoing.

There is no "smoking gun" as there was with the tapes in the Nixon investigation. There is just biased analysis alleging things based on hearsay information, presented in a complaint looking like it was researched and formatted by committee if not by a legal team. All designed, as usual, to present the absolutely worst case scenario "spin" on what occurred.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm, not quite.

The memorandum released shows the conversation, but the whistleblower complaint analyses the hearsay evidence of what was said during the conversation.

There is no "smoking gun" as there was with the tapes in the Nixon investigation. There is just biased analysis alleging things based on hearsay information, presented in a complaint looking like it was researched and formatted by committee if not by a legal team.
Click to expand...

The incomplete memo shows a portion of the conversation. The full transcript has not been released.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
So what? And why would this make Schiff an "orchestrator"?
Click to expand...

Well, he obviously wrote the script for Trump to read on Jul 25th.
Then he told Pompeo to pretend he hadn't read the transcript or the complaint, while twisting his waxed mustache in private, full well knowing he was on the call.

That shifty Schiff man, he is like the Wizard of DC.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The whistleblower went to the General Counsel of the CIA before going to the House staffer and only went to the staffer after they had discovered the CIA GC went to the White House with their concerns. The staffer (not Schiff) followed policy by recommending they get a lawyer and submit it as a whistleblower complaint.

The Trump-appointed ICIG and DNI both corroborated the complaint.

Trump released a partial transcript that has matched up with everything the whistleblower has claimed thus far.

Your claims are getting more unhinged by the hour.
Click to expand...

That's not what the article says. The article says the eventual whistleblower had a colleague go to the general counsel then, when that didn't get the desired results, the whistleblower went to Schiff.

Next question that needs to be answered, other than providing guidance on who to file a grievance with, did Schiff's people assist in constructing the grievance?
 
"Mr. Schiff’s intense push took Mr. Maguire and his aides by surprise, current and former intelligence officials said. In other cases of lawmakers seeking classified material that the intelligence agencies were reluctant to share, including whistle-blower complaints, both sides usually tried to resolve the matter by holding quiet discussions.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations."


Schiff went public without any corroboration of the complaint.
And he went down impeachment road still without any corroboration now that we've seen the transcript.
He's got some 'splainin' to do and another parody won't do it.
 
Lutherf said:
That's not what the article says. The article says the eventual whistleblower had a colleague go to the general counsel then
Click to expand...

They submitted their concerns to the CIA GC. Are you disputing that?

when that didn't get the desired results, the whistleblower went to Schiff.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They went to a committee staffer. You're lying as usual.

Next question that needs to be answered, other than providing guidance on who to file a grievance with, did Schiff's people assist in constructing the grievance?
Click to expand...

You have no more evidence of this than you did before this article came out. And it doesn't matter because we have corroboration by the ICIG, the DNI and Trump himself.

Why doesn't Trump release the full transcript if it's so exonerating?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
So what? And why would this make Schiff an "orchestrator"?
Click to expand...
Because it helps the objective of shifting focus to someone other than Trump. It's the standard 'follow the shiny object' routine.
 
bubbabgone said:
"Mr. Schiff’s intense push took Mr. Maguire and his aides by surprise, current and former intelligence officials said. In other cases of lawmakers seeking classified material that the intelligence agencies were reluctant to share, including whistle-blower complaints, both sides usually tried to resolve the matter by holding quiet discussions.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations."


Schiff went public without any corroboration of the complaint.
And he went down impeachment road still without any corroboration now that we've seen the transcript.
He's got some 'splainin' to do and another parody won't do it.
Click to expand...

The ICIG corroborated the complaint by the time Schiff went public.

Keep lying. It's obvious what reality is here and you're not living in it.
 
Lutherf said:
That's not what the article says. The article says the eventual whistleblower had a colleague go to the general counsel then, when that didn't get the desired results, the whistleblower went to Schiff.

Next question that needs to be answered, other than providing guidance on who to file a grievance with, did Schiff's people assist in constructing the grievance?
Click to expand...
It's perfectly legal and ethical for whistleblowers to inform Congress of wrongdoing.

Your acting like it's some conspiratorial strategy is laughable.
 
Lutherf said:
That's not what the article says. The article says the eventual whistleblower had a colleague go to the general counsel then, when that didn't get the desired results, the whistleblower went to Schiff.

Next question that needs to be answered, other than providing guidance on who to file a grievance with, did Schiff's people assist in constructing the grievance?
Click to expand...
Who cares? The law says that whistle blower complaints must go to Congress. If the WH was trying to bury the complaint -- thus not following the law, Schiff was within his rights as Chair of the committee to get involved.

If you are stating that Schiff did something wrong, state what he did that was wrong.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm, not quite.

The complaint does provide certain "excepts" which are similar if not mirror images of the conversation memorandum. But the whistleblower "complaint" analyses (or more correctly "interprets") the hearsay evidence of what was said during the conversation in order to present alleged wrongdoing.

There is no "smoking gun" as there was with the tapes in the Nixon investigation. There is just biased analysis alleging things based on hearsay information, presented in a complaint looking like it was researched and formatted by committee if not by a legal team. All designed, as usual, to present the absolutely worst case scenario "spin" on what occurred.
Click to expand...
There is literally a transcript that confirms the whistleblower account, as well public admissions from Trump and Giuliani.

That's not hearsay, that's a smoking gun.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The Trump-appointed ICIG and DNI both corroborated the complaint.

Trump released a partial transcript that has matched up with everything the whistleblower has claimed thus far.
Click to expand...

These are the key points. The complaint was corroborated and the actual call transcript supports what the whistleblower said.
 
bubbabgone said:
Schiff went public without any corroboration of the complaint.
Click to expand...
The IC IG did a preimliarny review and found it it to be both credible and urgent.
White House released the transcript and it supports the WB allegation, and is now being fully investigated as a matter of impeachment.

Testimony begins tomorrow.
Mike Pompeo appears to be hiding white house records and testimony based on his unwillingness to fulfill the requests for records 3 weeks ago, and now again to send a defiant and absurd communication the more formal request.
There is a briefing today from the IG as urgent, to Congress, and its likely to be on State Department pressuring witnesses not to testify, we'll hopefully find out soon.

Trump is using his questions while the leader of Finland sits next to him, to ramble on about every conspiracy theory and made up claim from the right wing blogosphere, in attacking everyone from Paul Ryan, to the whistleblower, the whilsteblower's sources, Nancy, Schiff, past presidents, etc. But he just...can't...answer the pointed questions.
 
bubbabgone said:
Told ya.
Schiff was the orchestrator from the get-go.
Click to expand...
Schiff made Trump pressure a foreign government to manufacture a fake scandal against Trump's political opponent while Trump was refusing to release money appropriated by Congress to said government?

How do you figure that?
 
I think Schiff peed his pants a little just now.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
MovingPictures said:
It's perfectly legal and ethical for whistleblowers to inform Congress of wrongdoing.

Your acting like it's some conspiratorial strategy is laughable.
Click to expand...

But. They are not worried.
They're not worried.
Hey guys. No worry here.

I would be enjoying this more if the state of the republic wasn't in jeopardy.
 
Eriech said:
I think Schiff peed his pants a little just now.
Click to expand...
Because he did the right thing by having the whistleblower (who was unknown to Schiff) go through the appropriate channels first?


Seriously, is there no bottom to the stupidity right now?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
They submitted their concerns to the CIA GC. Are you disputing that?



Wrong. They went to a committee staffer. You're lying as usual.



You have no more evidence of this than you did before this article came out. And it doesn't matter because we have corroboration by the ICIG, the DNI and Trump himself.

Why doesn't Trump release the full transcript if it's so exonerating?
Click to expand...

Going to Schiff's staff is the same as going to Schiff. That is it's the same unless you figure Schiff's staff regularly fails to inform him of what they are being contacted with.
 
MTAtech said:
Who cares? The law says that whistle blower complaints must go to Congress. If the WH was trying to bury the complaint -- thus not following the law, Schiff was within his rights as Chair of the committee to get involved.

If you are stating that Schiff did something wrong, state what he did that was wrong.
Click to expand...

There was no whistleblower complaint before the source went to Schiff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom