Whistleblower 'didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications' between Trump and Ukraine

So no source?
And there are proper channels for that.

 

So no answers. Cool

 

Thanks for that link it's one of the few things that factual and not subjective or politically motivated I've seen posted concerning this.

 

"
The statute authorizes the ICIG to “receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.”[/QUOTE]

The President does not report to the DN or acts within his authority.

"It also provides procedures for a whistleblower to inform the congressional intelligence committees of an “urgent concern,” defined as, among other things, a “serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency” relating to intelligence activities and involving classified information. The statute requires that an intelligence community employee who wishes to make such a report first submit it to the ICIG, who must determine within 14 days whether it “appears credible.” The ICIG must then provide the DNI a copy of the complaint and his determination about its credibility."

The DNI said the complaint did not qualify under the statute


"Implementing these laws, President Obama, in Presidential Policy Directive 19 (PPD 19), and then-DNI James Clapper, in Intelligence Community Directive 120 (ICD 120), mandated that no intelligence community employee may be subject to reprisals for any disclosures that are made in conformity with the procedures set out above. Whistleblowers who do not follow these procedures, however, are not protected by the statute.""

My concern is who leaked it to the person who attempted to file the complaint.

 

What are you missing here, it is why Guliani was traveling there, it is what Trump was requesting. Hard to investigate until we can negotiate that cooperation and I hope we do get that cooperation so there can be a full investigation don't you?

 

Since when do you have to be in the country to commit an international crime? And again hard to investigate without the cooperation of the other side.

 

LOL! Do you see evidence of any reform since 1073?

"[W]ASHINGTON - Oh, heck, let's just impeach
him again. With Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton subverted
the legal system and sullied the presidency. With Marc
Rich, he perverted the legal system and may have traded
a constitutional power for personal benefit....

The Clintons ran a cash-and-carry White House. They
were either hawking stuff or carting it off.

Beyond Denise Rich's $3 million fund-raising
lunch and personal donations - $450,000 to
the Clinton library, more than $1 million to
Democrats, $10,000 to the Clinton legal
defense fund, $7,375 for Clinton furniture -
let's hope Bill Clinton has a Swiss bank
account set up by Marc Rich."...

“First Mr. Holder said he did not make a fuss
because he did not know who Marc Rich was.
Then he said he did not make a fuss because
he assumed a pardon would not be granted to a
known fugitive.”
THE NEW YORK TIMES, Maureen Dowd, Liberties; ”Get Rich Quick,", 2/11/2001.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/opinion/liberties-get-rich-quick.html

Everyone knows the DOJ/FBI is crooked. Some just pretend they don't know.

 

The President does not report to the DN or acts within his authority.

"It also provides procedures for a whistleblower to inform the congressional intelligence committees of an “urgent concern,” defined as, among other things, a “serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency” relating to intelligence activities and involving classified information. The statute requires that an intelligence community employee who wishes to make such a report first submit it to the ICIG, who must determine within 14 days whether it “appears credible.” The ICIG must then provide the DNI a copy of the complaint and his determination about its credibility."

The DNI said the complaint did not qualify under the statute


"Implementing these laws, President Obama, in Presidential Policy Directive 19 (PPD 19), and then-DNI James Clapper, in Intelligence Community Directive 120 (ICD 120), mandated that no intelligence community employee may be subject to reprisals for any disclosures that are made in conformity with the procedures set out above. Whistleblowers who do not follow these procedures, however, are not protected by the statute.""

My concern is who leaked it to the person who attempted to file the complaint.[/QUOTE]

Right but if you read the statute it doesn't give the DNI the ability to actually say "hey this doesn't pass muster so I'm not passing it on" that's the ICIG's job and DNI is required by mandatory language in the statute to cough the **** up to the intel committees within a week of receiving it.
Now, as the article lays out, no executive has ever complied with that as a mandatory requirement. Not Clinton when he signed the first iteration, not Obama when he tweaked it, and in fact they both say they don't have to follow that **** if they don't want to, essentially.

I'm likewise concerned with how a person whose duties did not include intel, got hold of FGI level **** just wandering about. That seems odd. Probably pillow talk.

 

LOL! Has Barr brought Comey, McCabe, Wray, Brennan, Clapper ... before a grand jury?

 

Or LBJ when he bugged Nixon's airplane in 1968.

 

Is the presidents personal lawyer the proper channel? So now you admit there is no invesigation?

 

We'll see, it does seem very thin at first glance.

 

It's the DNI Office of Legal Counsel that advises him. This complaint did not meet the statutory requirements of a whistleblower complaint.

THAT is what needs to investigated and who knows it may have been Bolton.

 

It's so funny watching the Mainstream Media ignore the Biden Ukraine scandal and crimes for months. They even have Biden on video, but refuse to report it. Now Trump is FORCING them to expose it to their audience of sheep, with yet another false promise of IMPEACH TRUMP / ORANGE MAN BAD. In the end, Biden goes down and Trump exposed him when our "Free Press" refused to do their jobs.

 

If that is whom he deems the best person to conduct those one on one negotiations it is. I don't know what is being investigated at this point anymore than you, have we gotten the Ukraine cooperation yet? I have said it certainly needs to be investigated don't you agree.

As I first said and you replied

Yes we need to find out who told this non-whistleblower the contents of a classified information between the President and a foreign leader and that person needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Since the DNI OLC ruled this is NOT a whistleblower case by statute then the person should have no legal protection from not answering the questions of federal investigator and could be subject to obstruction of justice for refuse to answer. This needs to go the grand jury.

And still waiting

Which way do you want it, the whistleblower is lying and should be prosecuted or someone violated the espionage act and should be prosecuted?

 

I reject your false choice. I want the complaint sent to congress and let’s go from there.

 

Again just the Opposite when Obama was in the White House.
It was widely acknowledged that he would not tolerate whistleblowers
while he was President.Just like he banned White House Press Photographers.
And anyone attempting to have access to his WH visitors log.

" The Obama Administration has used the Espionage
act to go after Whistleblowers who leaked to
journalist ... more than All previous administrations
Combined " -- Jake Tapper {Jan. 2nd,2014 }

 

Yes I'm aware of that, but READ THE STATUTE. It doesn't say the DNI shall assess and if they ratify the ICIG shall forward on in a week. It says once he receives it from the ICIG it goes to the intel committees within a week. The ICIG has discretion under the statute, not the DNI.

What's interesting is that every executive has said "nah **** that I'm not doing that **** if I think its privileged" on this issue when presented, and that generally jives with the concept of executive privilege. So while the statute says do it, the executive has always said "only if we feel like it", and nothing has ever been done to bring that to a head.

You can do both, and since there isn't settled law on this its likely to end up in court.

Bolton would've encountered it during the course of his duties: he was nat sec advisor yeah? I don't think it was him.

 

THIS!!!! THIS IS IT!!!!

 

There are zero reports saying the opposite. What there are is opinions that c,aim Biden did what he could not do. There was no investigation. There was no prosecution of young Biden to shut down.

 

Is there any credible evidence of crimes committed by Biden’s kid regarding this Ukraine deal? He hasn’t been involved for several years. What crime is he charged with?

 

Clearly it’s noT proper for the president to run around accusing their rival of being corrupt and asking foreign nations to go after them. This is what republicans want? Have they lost their minds?!?

 

The OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL said it did not meet the statutory requirements for a whistleblower complaint, the PRESIDENT and his discussions are not under the DNI.

 

What's the other choice? The law says it doesn't meet the statutory requrements of a whistleblower and all the so-called whistleblower has is hearsay. Why haven't the persons he claimed told him file a whistleblower complaint?

 

Where does the law say thafs up to them to decide?