Schiff Targets Political Rival, Journalist

[rogue06]

And why in Walter Cronkite are you linking to Epoch Times?!

And here we go. Sam asks for links. Sam handwaves links away without dealing with the substance. Same old same old.

I believe we are done here unless you can grow up.

[Watermelon]

Funny that you hone in Schiff's first mention of the case and ignore the others. Gotta cherry pick to keep the narrative alive I guess

Source: ANALYSIS: Does Schiff already know the Trump whistleblower's story?

...

Did House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff have the inside details about the Trump whistleblower two weeks ago?

Earlier this month, the California Democrat announced a “wide-ranging investigation” into allegations President Trump was trying to pressure Ukraine’s government into aiding his reelection campaign.

Schiff ordered the investigation on Sept. 9, hours before he received the first of two letters from the intelligence community inspector general revealing the existence of a whistleblower complaint. Multiple news outlets reported this week that the complaint involved, at least in part, a phone conversation between Trump and recently elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Inspector General Michael K. Atkinson's letter didn't provide Schiff with the details, but some Republicans say they suspect Schiff knew them already and was orchestrating a headline-grabbing story from his perch on the intelligence panel.

Earlier on the day the Atkinson letter arrived, Schiff demanded the Trump administration turn over documents and correspondence related to Trump’s alleged attempts to get Ukraine government officials to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

The fact that Schiff had and leaked details that were not in Ciaramella's complaint to the IG (which hadn't even been released yet) confirms that they had coordinated and why the New York Times was reporting that, at the very least, Schiff had "learned about the outlines" about what he was saying.

Schiff was the source of the leaks concerning what (at least according to Schiff) Ciaramella claimed, not just in the complaint but in his testimony.

How many people knew the details before the release? The whistleblower initially lodged the complaint to CIA counsel who then discussed it with a colleague who had already heard about multiple complaints regarding the call. They then discussed it with a head of a justice department branch who decided to go to the White House in order to read the call transcript to see if it warranted escalation. Then it seems like after the transcript was read every justice department head was called.

It looks like a lot of people already knew of the details before the whistle blower even approached Schiffs office. Isn’t it possible anyone of them could have leaked?

I really don’t know how the whistle blowing procedure works but what would the consequences be if Schiff really did lie about having prior knowledge of the reports contents?

[Sam]

Funny that you hone in Schiff's first mention of the case and ignore the others. Gotta cherry pick to keep the narrative alive I guess

The next tweet from Schiff is September 9, where he again does not include any information contained in the whistleblower complaint but absent from public reporting, which is the basis for your claim that Schiff coordinated with the whistleblower.

Source: ANALYSIS: Does Schiff already know the Trump whistleblower's story?

...

Did House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff have the inside details about the Trump whistleblower two weeks ago?

Earlier this month, the California Democrat announced a “wide-ranging investigation” into allegations President Trump was trying to pressure Ukraine’s government into aiding his reelection campaign.

Schiff ordered the investigation on Sept. 9, hours before he received the first of two letters from the intelligence community inspector general revealing the existence of a whistleblower complaint. Multiple news outlets reported this week that the complaint involved, at least in part, a phone conversation between Trump and recently elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Inspector General Michael K. Atkinson's letter didn't provide Schiff with the details, but some Republicans say they suspect Schiff knew them already and was orchestrating a headline-grabbing story from his perch on the intelligence panel.

Earlier on the day the Atkinson letter arrived, Schiff demanded the Trump administration turn over documents and correspondence related to Trump’s alleged attempts to get Ukraine government officials to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

The fact that Schiff had and leaked details that were not in Ciaramella's complaint to the IG (which hadn't even been released yet) confirms that they had coordinated and why the New York Times was reporting that, at the very least, Schiff had "learned about the outlines" about what he was saying.

Schiff was the source of the leaks concerning what (at least according to Schiff) Ciaramella claimed, not just in the complaint but in his testimony.

It is not disputed that the whistleblower approached HPSCI staff prior to filing a report to the ICIG. It is reasonable and, indeed, reported that the whistleblower shared non-classified vague information about his concerns. It is therefore not suggestive of coordination that 1) Schiff and his staff would know about the existence of the complaint and 2) know the overall nature of the complaint, especially given contemporaneous reporting.

So unless you can come up with something much, much better to support your claims here (which, keeping track, involves several false allegations of what the whistleblower said, false claims concerning Schiff's personal involvement and coordination writing the complaint, and a completely unsourced assertion that the whistleblower has testified), you're just running a conspiracy theory factless and breathless enough to be published in, well, The Epoch Times.

--Sam

[Sam]

And here we go. Sam asks for links. Sam handwaves links away without dealing with the substance. Same old same old.

I believe we are done here unless you can grow up.

The information in the citation is, as I said, agreed-upon information. No one is disputing that the whistleblower approached HPSCI staff after the CIA counsel referral and before filing the ICIG complaint.

The question is what the heck are you doing linking to a notorious conspiracy theorist/QAnon/anti-vax/cultish mouthpiece paper? Was it an accident of ignorance in grabbing a quick link or is this what you're filling your headspace with?

--Sam

[Teallaura]

If he had contact with the whistleblower, which for one, is just a republican assertion, and two, who the hell cares, and why? Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, which by the way is confirmed by evidence. So, seriously, other than your being told to care, why do you care?

I'm not dodging anything, tell me what you want me to prove.

For the sixth time, prove it.

[Teallaura]

It was nothing, really. Just some blah blah blahs.

So I gathered.

[Teallaura]

How many people knew the details before the release? The whistleblower initially lodged the complaint to CIA counsel who then discussed it with a colleague who had already heard about multiple complaints regarding the call. They then discussed it with a head of a justice department branch who decided to go to the White House in order to read the call transcript to see if it warranted escalation. Then it seems like after the transcript was read every justice department head was called.

It looks like a lot of people already knew of the details before the whistle blower even approached Schiffs office. Isn’t it possible anyone of them could have leaked?

I really don’t know how the whistle blowing procedure works but what would the consequences be if Schiff really did lie about having prior knowledge of the reports contents?

It violates the whistle blower statutes - the source of the complaint loses whistle blower status. Now he's just a leaker subject to firing and criminal investigation.

Further, Schiff is implicated (again) in spying on the administration. Which makes Schiff an interested party - who is now (legally?) conducting the investigation bringing the whole thing into question.

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

FYI: Schiff has admitted the complainant had contact with Schiff's staff prior to the complaint being filed. Schiff has now been implicated in spying activity that predates the inquiry (the phone records).

And just as the House gets to make up its own rules, so does the Senate, so you better believe this will come up at trial. I think you can imagine how the blame game goes from there.

[rogue06]

It violates the whistle blower statutes - the source of the complaint loses whistle blower status. Now he's just a leaker subject to firing and criminal investigation.

Further, Schiff is implicated (again) in spying on the administration. Which makes Schiff an interested party - who is now (legally?) conducting the investigation bringing the whole thing into question.

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

FYI: Schiff has admitted the complainant had contact with Schiff's staff prior to the complaint being filed. Schiff has now been implicated in spying activity that predates the inquiry (the phone records).

And just as the House gets to make up its own rules, so does the Senate, so you better believe this will come up at trial. I think you can imagine how the blame game goes from there.

00000000000000ab000-00aaag.jpg

[Sam]

It violates the whistle blower statutes - the source of the complaint loses whistle blower status. Now he's just a leaker subject to firing and criminal investigation.

This is not true; there's nothing in the statute (or relevant case law) that forbids a person making a complaint to ICIG from sharing non-classified information with other parties. And a "leak" would involve sharing detailed or classified information and no evidence suggests that the whistleblower shared detailed or classified information with HPSCI.

Further, Schiff is implicated (again) in spying on the administration. Which makes Schiff an interested party - who is now (legally?) conducting the investigation bringing the whole thing into question.

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

That's not what "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine means. There's no evidence suggesting that details of whistleblower's complaint or subsequent information was obtained illegally.

But if we want to start talking about the conduct of the investigation being called into question, one would expect people here to be really upset that the ranking member did not disclose his prior phone conversations and/or meetings with key targets of the investigation. Instead, we're talking about this in a threat that accuses the chairman of "targeting" the ranking member by including those call logs.

FYI: Schiff has admitted the complainant had contact with Schiff's staff prior to the complaint being filed. Schiff has now been implicated in spying activity that predates the inquiry (the phone records).

And just as the House gets to make up its own rules, so does the Senate, so you better believe this will come up at trial. I think you can imagine how the blame game goes from there.

That's not "spying". You're not spying when you subpoena call records from Parnas and Giuliani during the investigation and the ranking member happens to show up in those logs in calls that predate the inquiry.

When we're getting to the point where linear time itself is a matter of debate, it's a pretty grim indication of the road ahead or behind.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

This is not true; there's nothing in the statute (or relevant case law) that forbids a person making a complaint to ICIG from sharing non-classified information with other parties. And a "leak" would involve sharing detailed or classified information and no evidence suggests that the whistleblower shared detailed or classified information with HPSCI.



That's not what "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine means. There's no evidence suggesting that details of whistleblower's complaint or subsequent information was obtained illegally.

But if we want to start talking about the conduct of the investigation being called into question, one would expect people here to be really upset that the ranking member did not disclose his prior phone conversations and/or meetings with key targets of the investigation. Instead, we're talking about this in a threat that accuses the chairman of "targeting" the ranking member by including those call logs.



That's not "spying". You're not spying when you subpoena call records from Parnas and Giuliani during the investigation and the ranking member happens to show up in those logs in calls that predate the inquiry.

When we're getting to the point where linear time itself is a matter of debate, it's a pretty grim indication of the road ahead or behind.

--Sam

Yeah you'll support Schiff no matter what because destroying Trump is more important than the country. Got it.

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah you'll support Schiff no matter what because destroying Trump is more important than the country. Got it.

That isn't what he said, nor is it an implication of what he said.

That comment is nothing more than a petty jab at sam.

[Sam]

Yeah you'll support Schiff no matter what because destroying Trump is more important than the country. Got it.

Well, right now we're dealing with allegations against Schiff that are either

Not factual (demonstrably false)
Unsourced (not evidenced)
Not-even-wrong (based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of legal matters)

In the post above, we're talking about whether Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine applies to evidence collected by the committee and whether Schiff engaged in spying activity to obtain call records including Nunes and Solomon.

To the first allegation, it's just a misrepresentation of what FotPT doctrine entails: the evidence has been obtained through lawful means with the ICIG sending the whistleblower complaint and through subsquent subpoenas (which some folks here imagined for awhile were without force of law but have since moved on).

But while the committees subpoenas were unlawful, we know that the whistleblower complaint was unlawfully withheld from Congress and security funding for Ukraine was unlawfully withheld (since the lawful holds that could be placed on the aid require notification to Congress that didn't occur).

To the second allegation, it's also in the not-even-wrong category: the committee lawfully obtained call records of key investigative interests, including Lev Parnas (indicted) and Rudy Giuliani (a likely co-conspirator to Parnas and central figure in the main investigation). That's not "spying", which is a clandestine acquisition of contemporaneous information, typically outside the existence of a law enforcement framework.

That Devin Nunes and John Solomon have been found, through an examination of call records, to have had direct conversations with those two figures at key moments in the investigative time line isn't spying so I stand on good ground to support Schiff against a false charge.

The question is why several of y'all feel the need to falsely attack Schiff for finding and releasing information that strongly suggests Nunes and Solomon had knowledge of one or more conspiracies as they were occurring and not only said nothing but actively engaged in a disinformation campaign during the investigation. What about Nunes or Solomon, to you, screams that everything there was on the up-and-up?

--Sam

[JimL]

For the sixth time, prove it.

Oh, that's easy. Schiff didn't have access to the data in the complaint, and the data in the complaint was substantiated, so the only one that could possibly have had anything to do with facts contained in the complaint itself, was the whistleblower himself. What do you think, that Schiff made the whole thing up and then it just happened to turn out to be true?

[Cow Poke]

Oh, that's easy. Schiff didn't have access to the data in the complaint, and the data in the complaint was substantiated, so the only one that could possibly have had anything to do with facts contained in the complaint itself, was the whistleblower himself. What do you think, that Schiff made the whole thing up and then it just happened to turn out to be true?

Even the NYTimes calls Schiff out on this....

Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

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 early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

[JimL]

Even the NYTimes calls Schiff out on this....

Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

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 early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

What about it? How is that "calling Schiff out?"