Posted by DrJohn on 10 October, 2019 at 7:04 am. 19 comments already!



It’s bad enough that democrats want to remove Trump from office based on hearsay and secret witnesses but it gets worse. They are also changing the rules for the sole purpose of removing Trump.

Prior to the so-called “whistle blower” (WB) coming forward, the language in the complaint form did indicate that the information had to be first hand. IC IG Michael Atkinson changed the form specifically for this WB.

On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday. While many in the media falsely claimed the ICIG’s stunning admission debunked The Federalist’s report, the admission from the ICIG completely affirmed the reporting on the secretive change to whistleblower rules following the filing of an anti-Trump complaint in August.

The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. The Federalist reported last week that it was not known which form, if any, the complainant used, as the complaint that was declassified and released to the public last week was written as a letter to the two chairmen of the congressional intelligence committees.

Remember that the WB contacted Schiff’s office before he or she contacted the IG and Schiff lied about it.

Michael Atkinson, the IC IG, could not account for the 18 day delay between the Ukrainian call and the filing of the complaint- or even when the WB contacted Schiff’s office.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, in testimony to House lawmakers about the whistleblower complaint on President Trump‘s controversial phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, could not explain what accounted for the 18-day window between the July 25 call and the Aug. 12 complaint filing — or when exactly the whistleblower contacted a key Democrat’s staff, sources familiar with the testimony told Fox News.

The whistleblower’s contact with Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff’s staff before filing the complaint in mid-August has prompted renewed scrutiny of Schiff.

The top Democrat previously said “we have not spoken directly to the whistleblower,” but his office later revised the claim, saying that Schiff himself “does not know the identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the whistleblower or their counsel” for any reason.

Here’s the nitty gritty

Sources familiar with Atkinson’s closed-door, transcribed interview Friday with members of the House Intelligence Committee also noted that Atkinson said the whistleblower did not disclose the contact – during that 18-day window – with Schiff’s office, as Fox News first reported Friday. Sources said Atkinson testified that the whistleblower, in filing the complaint, left “blank” a section in which he or she could have disclosed that congressional contact.

Left it blank- to be filled in later. And there’s a problem with the complainant

Sources further have told Fox News that Atkinson revealed the whistleblower volunteered he or she was a registered Democrat and had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician.

As in a 2020 candidate.

So Atkinson’s actions make clear that depending on the target of the complaint, the IC is willing to rewrite the language in these forms.

That’s a problem. Sen. Tom Cotton also thinks there is a problem:

Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community Inspector General, or ICIG, is under fire for secretly eliminating a requirement that whistleblowers provide first-hand information to support allegations of wrongdoing. The ICIG admitted that it secretly changed its rules and forms in response to an error-ridden complaint filed against President Donald Trump that consisted entirely of gossip, rumor, and second-hand information.

“Your disappointing testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on September 26 was evasive to the point of being insolent and obstructive,” Cotton, a Republican member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), wrote on Wednesday.

Cotton said Atkinson refused to disclose to SSCI members why Atkinson initially determined the anti-Trump complainant had a partisan political bias against Trump.

“Despite repeated questions, you refused to explain what you meant in your written report by ‘indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of a rival political candidate,’” Cotton wrote. “This information is, of course, unclassified and we were meeting in a closed setting. Yet you moralized about how you were duty bound not to share even a hint of this political bias with us.”

Now we learn that the House changed its rules to be able to further frame Trump. On the very day the WB complaint was filed, Pelosi changed the House rules for impeachment. The language change is here

The two most recent resolutionsresolutions adopted by the House to authorize an impeachment investigation were taken up by unanimous consent at the request of the Rules Committee chair.15 Rather than convene a committeecommittee meeting to order the resolutions reported with a quorum present, the chair asked unanimous consent that the House discharge the Rules Committee and agree to the resolution. Both of these resolutions concerned federal judges, and they were agreed to without debate.

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry.16 The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation.17 In two of the three recent cases, the House agreed to separate resolutions to allow committee counsel to take affidavits and depositions.18

If the House does approve an authorizing resolution, then in addition to the Rules Committee, the Judiciary Committee can report an original resolution authorizing an impeachment investigation if impeachment resolutions have been referred to the committee.19 In the

In the case of the most recent authorization of a presidential impeachment inquiry, the full House did debate the resolutionJudiciary Committee reported such a resolution, and the full House debated it.

(H/T David Harris)

Impeachment is a serious issue. Screwing around with the language of impeachment is well, deplorable. Screwing around with the language with the intent to targeting one person is despicable.

Dems were quick to make public the WB complaint but have kept the Volker testimony secret. We have the statements of Trump and Zelensky denying that there was any pressure or blackmail in the phone call but for some reason dems have thrown that aside for hearsay.

It becomes clear that this is not justice, but rather a lawless conspiracy that seeks to deprive Trump of his rights.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x