Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[JimL]

No there isn’t. What we have is a secondhand claim that makes several factual errors that can be compared to the transcript. You’re doing an awesome job in helping Trump win in 2020.

No, what we have is the transcript of the call itself. We don't need it direct from the whistleblower, it's in the transcript. The second hand claim nonsense is just the talking point for dummies you're buying into.

[lilpixieofterror]

The fact that the TDS crowd keeps going back to the whistleblower's report on the conversation between Trump and Zelensky rather than the transcript of the actual conversation reveals that they understand that the conversation isn't damning so they have to rely on a gossip's erroneous second and third hand accounts to continue to prop up their claims.

Thus, among the reasons the democrats are going to lose in 2020 (that and their candidates going all in on the far left stuff). In fact, this whole impeachment scheme could cost them some purple democrat seats too.

[rogue06]

No there isn’t. What we have is a secondhand claim that makes several factual errors that can be compared to the transcript. You’re doing an awesome job in helping Trump win in 2020.

The fact that the TDS crowd keeps going back to the whistleblower's report on the conversation between Trump and Zelensky rather than the transcript of the actual conversation reveals that they understand that the conversation isn't damning so they have to rely on a gossip's erroneous second and third hand accounts to continue to prop up their claims.

[lilpixieofterror]

There is no "scheme'. There is a gross abuse of power that several who happen to have a conscience observed. A person can't live as immorally and as dishonestly as Donald Trump has and not eventually have to face the consequences.

Jim

No there isn’t. What we have is a secondhand claim that makes several factual errors that can be compared to the transcript. You’re doing an awesome job in helping Trump win in 2020.

[lilpixieofterror]

He's a dictator at heart Bill. He's also a crook. His only problem is that he's a dictator and a crook at the head of a democracy, which so far is holding up. He's made one thing apparent though, he's exposed the cracks in the system that might allow the possibility of a corrupt authoritarian like himelf to bring the system down. Probably took instructions from his best bud Vladimir.

And yet, you can’t prove a word of any of this as true beyond your own imagination.

[lilpixieofterror]

Better than insubstantial bloomers!

[lilpixieofterror]

One term? Democrats, because the republican congress has no principles, are hopefully going to make him less than a one term president. If the unprincipled majority Senate refuse to convict, then the Dems at least will have done the right and patriotic thing anyway by beginning the impeachment process, and when the fair objective minded republican constituency out there, (not you) see the evidence of his criminality and abuse of power, he will lose in a landslide. If not, then you'll get the dictator that you deserve!

That’s a great rant and wishful thinking you got there Jimmy, but you have failed, each and every time, to name specific crimes Trump has committed that could be backed up, in a court of law. In reality land, while the democrats are pleasing their far left base, most are unimpressed. I have a lot of democrat members of my own family and many have become tired of the 24/7 rage that has taken over the democrat party. I’ve watched anti Trumpers turn to Trump supporters or at least unwilling supporters. All this is thanks to Democrat efforts to undue the 2016 election and sweep it all away. After Trump’s re-election in 2020, he should thank the DNC and mass media for making it all possible. They created this all on their own and it is awesome to watch the democrat party and media stepping on their own rake, over and over again, never learning.

[oxmixmudd]

In short, you're begging the question.

And I'm still not seeing any law or government policy saying that the server can't or shouldn't be used in the manner described. I think what really has liberals upset is that it has proven to be an effective means of preventing leaks, which is why they were forced to go with the "no firsthand knowledge whistleblower" scheme.

There is no "scheme'. There is a gross abuse of power that several who happen to have a conscience observed. A person can't live as immorally and as dishonestly as Donald Trump has and not eventually have to face the consequences.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

The NSC’s codeword-level system is specifically designed to protect highly sensitive compartmented intelligence matters.

So now “Experts are homing in on allegations that the White House used a computer system meant for highly classified information to store details of President Donald Trump’s calls with foreign leaders, in what they described as a stark departure from how the server is normally used and how memos of the president’s exchanges are typically handled”.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...script-1514714

In short, it's being used for a cover-up.

In short, you're begging the question.

And I'm still not seeing any law or government policy saying that the server can't or shouldn't be used in the manner described. I think what really has liberals upset is that it has proven to be an effective means of preventing leaks, which is why they were forced to go with the "no firsthand knowledge whistleblower" scheme.

[Tassman]

Says who?

The NSC’s codeword-level system is specifically designed to protect highly sensitive compartmented intelligence matters.

So now “Experts are homing in on allegations that the White House used a computer system meant for highly classified information to store details of President Donald Trump’s calls with foreign leaders, in what they described as a stark departure from how the server is normally used and how memos of the president’s exchanges are typically handled”.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...script-1514714

In short, it's being used for a cover-up.

[NorrinRadd]

Tell me about it - I had one who would never clean his dirty dishes!

Through some bizarre coincidence, all my roommates also had that same one bad roommate.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, no, nice try on that one but Davis' entire thrust was that this was a recent and secret change. Davis goes on to say that the "new" form was surreptitiously uploaded only days before the whistleblower complaint was made public and marked as sometime in August 2019. As you and others tried to argue, the whole idea was that a special accommodation was being invented for this whistleblower to go along with the other talking point (also refuted by the ICIG) that the whistleblower had no "firsthand" knowledge, making the complaint invalid.

So The Federalist and Davis got it very wrong by taking something true (the "new" form came into use in late May 2018) and extending the timeline ("sometime between May 2018 and August 2019") and extrapolating that into "the form was recently changed to set up Trump with this phony whistleblower". Mendacious is the appropriate word and it should affect how people use Davis' work going forward.

--Sam

So what you're saying is that he got it right, but he still got it wrong. Okay...

Try reading the whole article. The writer never definitively declares that it was a recent change, and he states multiple times that it's unclear exactly when the changes were made. He even contacted the ICIG and asked for clarification, but they refused to comment, so the article leaves it an open question. By all accounts, he did his due diligence as a reporter.

[JimL]

Repeating the same non substantieted dishonest opinion does not make it true or a fact JimL it only shows you are a one trick pony and gets old.

Oh, his guilt, his collusion, his abuse of power, his obstruction of Congress, it's all substantiated alright, but you'll find that out soon enough RTT, he's going to be impeached, and he's going to be found guilty, if not by the cowardly, unprincipled Republican Senate, then by the people. I suspect he might flee to Russia before the state courts get their hands on him after his ouster. But you're beloved dictator is done for and the crew and hostages are abandoning the fast sinking ship. You'll see, you'll see, don't worry RTT you will see.

[Sam]

From the ICIG press release:

"The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018..."

Very first line in The Federalist article:

"Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings."

Looks like he got the dates dead on accurate. You ask "how the author should be treated as a journalistic source if he doesn't cop to the major error," but it seems you're the one who made the "major error" by not bothering to read the source you were criticizing. Seriously, man, it was the very first line!

But I will gladly admit my own error: I was under the impression that the forms were changed right before the "whistleblower" stepped forward, but it seems they were changed over a year ago, and the public wasn't aware of the change until just recently. So I was wrong on that point. Still, it's a curious change to allow the reporting of complaints based on rumors and hearsay.

Yeah, no, nice try on that one but Davis' entire thrust was that this was a recent and secret change. Davis goes on to say that the "new" form was surreptitiously uploaded only days before the whistleblower complaint was made public and marked as sometime in August 2019. As you and others tried to argue, the whole idea was that a special accommodation was being invented for this whistleblower to go along with the other talking point (also refuted by the ICIG) that the whistleblower had no "firsthand" knowledge, making the complaint invalid.

So The Federalist and Davis got it very wrong by taking something true (the "new" form came into use in late May 2018) and extending the timeline ("sometime between May 2018 and August 2019") and extrapolating that into "the form was recently changed to set up Trump with this phony whistleblower". Mendacious is the appropriate word and it should affect how people use Davis' work going forward.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

To swing back around to this...

From the ICIG press release:

"The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018..."

Very first line in The Federalist article:

"Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings."

Looks like he got the dates dead on accurate. You ask "how the author should be treated as a journalistic source if he doesn't cop to the major error," but it seems you're the one who made the "major error" by not bothering to read the source you were criticizing. Seriously, man, it was the very first line!

But I will gladly admit my own error: I was under the impression that the forms were changed right before the "whistleblower" stepped forward, but it seems they were changed over a year ago, and the public wasn't aware of the change until just recently. So I was wrong on that point. Still, it's a curious change to allow the reporting of complaints based on rumors and hearsay.