The LTC who testified, not only changed his story from his disposition, but he said that he didn't have anyone to report his "story" to.  So instead he told his brother.  I didn' t know his brother had security clearance. 
Remember when General Flynn changed his story, he was charged with perjury because he forgot to mention 1 or 2 meetings with Russian officials about ISIS in the middle east.  Meetings of which were all cleared by the Obama admin.

Word on the block is the purple heart the LTC received was a gimme also.  There was a mortar that landed 75m from his position and he claimed he was "hurt".  I've heard of a CSM's getting a purple heart because they tripped and fell in the FOB and hurt his back.  The FOB was not under attack of any sort.  Same with CAB's.

Yes, it is inappropriate to run to the CHAIR OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, Adam Schiff and his staff, before (1) working the issue through his chain of command, (2) contacting his legal office, (3) filing an IG complaint, or any other office specifically staffed to field such complaints.

Since you aren't in gov't and are only doing hypotheticals based on your limited knowledge, let me explain it to you:

The government, whether you are a civilian employee, a contractor, military or elected/appointed official, provides a formal complaint system with contacts at all levels of your chain of command/supervisory managers.

If you feel you can't trust your bosses because they are the subject of the complaint, have been informed and done nothing, or you fear retaliation, you can go to any number of people who will record your complaint and assign it to someone to investigate without divulging who lodged the complaint.  Even in my company, we've had people file complaints -- current and former employees -- which initiated an investigation that included interviews with managers and coworkers.  The person who filed the complaint was never identified during the interviews.

So, by running to Congress, he violated the process EVERYONE IS TRAINED TO KNOW EXISTS.  They give annual training to every single gov't employee, so there's no reason for the WB to do what he did.

The telling fact is that Schiff took no action until after the IG complaint was filed and investigated.  Only after nothing came of it did Schiff and Pelosi start the impeachment train rolling.

The IG investigation determined the complaint was not sufficient to report to Congressional oversight.  The only reason the IG complaint was even filed is because Schiff's office knew that was the proper procedure.

So, Schiff's staff directed the WB to contact the "#coup has begun" lawyer to help draft the complaint.

I'm not a mind reader, but I'll bet a dozen donuts the WB went to Schiff's staff because he knew the complaint didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense.  Their only strategy was to pretend to use the formal IG complaint system in hopes of hiding the WB's identity, and allow Schiff to use it as the impetus for an inquiry-impeachment-removal hail Mary pass.

A whistleblower can take a complaint to congress if they already filed the complaint with the IG and no action was taken. Initially the IG didn't release the complaint within the proscribed time frame but did so after consulting with legal counsel for advice IIRC. So we know Schiff met the whistleblower at some level but was that before the complaint to the IG was filed or was that after in which case the whistleblower was not wrong.

"In a case such as the present situation, the whistleblower would be on strong constitutional and statutory footing to take their complaint straight to a sitting member of Congress, especially an intelligence committee chair like Schiff."
https://www.justsecurity.org/66211/qa-on-whistleblower-complaint-being-withheld-from-congressional-intelligence-committees/

In fact it was quite common for whistleblowers to contact congress with their issues.
"In a 2016 story in The Intercept, a spokesman for Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, then the chair of the House intelligence committee, said the committee received whistleblower complaints in the “dozens” each year from both the intelligence community inspector general “and via individuals who approach the committee directly.”"
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiff-wrong-on-whistleblower-contact/

So it really doesn't look like the whistleblower did anything wrong, the only fishy thing is why Schiff wasn't honest that there had been some contact between his office and the whistleblower.

 

A whistleblower can take a complaint to congress if they already filed the complaint with the IG and no action was taken. Initially the IG didn't release the complaint within the proscribed time frame but did so after consulting with legal counsel for advice IIRC. So we know Schiff met the whistleblower at some level but was that before the complaint to the IG was filed or was that after in which case the whistleblower was not wrong.

"In a case such as the present situation, the whistleblower would be on strong constitutional and statutory footing to take their complaint straight to a sitting member of Congress, especially an intelligence committee chair like Schiff."
https://www.justsecurity.org/66211/qa-on-whistleblower-complaint-being-withheld-from-congressional-intelligence-committees/

In fact it was quite common for whistleblowers to contact congress with their issues.
"In a 2016 story in The Intercept, a spokesman for Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, then the chair of the House intelligence committee, said the committee received whistleblower complaints in the “dozens” each year from both the intelligence community inspector general “and via individuals who approach the committee directly.”"
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiff-wrong-on-whistleblower-contact/

So it really doesn't look like the whistleblower did anything wrong, the only fishy thing is why Schiff wasn't honest that there had been some contact between his office and the whistleblower.

You haven't been paying attention, huh?

The non-whistle-blower informant went to Schiff's staff BEFORE getting a lawyer who then authored  wrote  assisted the informant before the complaint was filed with the IG. 

You're not getting anywhere with your arguments.  Just stop.

You haven't been paying attention, huh?

The non-whistle-blower informant went to Schiff's staff BEFORE getting a lawyer who then authored  wrote  assisted the informant before the complaint was filed with the IG. 

You're not getting anywhere with your arguments.  Just stop.

Keep in mind that the section you highlighted in red was not me arguing that the reporting was proper, I was only correcting the misinformation that a whistleblower cannot take the complaint to congress because they can in certain circumstances. So what you clearly missed is that I wasn't making an argument per se there, I was presenting a fact about the reporting rules.

Now I ask you this,  what do you expect to come out of pointing out the violation of protocol? The case can be made that the whistleblower didn't follow proper protocol but does it therefore follow that the complaint must then be ignored? What argument can you make after that, that we should ignore alleged crimes over a procedural violation?

Keep in mind that the section you highlighted in red was not me arguing that the reporting was proper, I was only correcting the misinformation that a whistleblower cannot take the complaint to congress because they can in certain circumstances. So what you clearly missed is that I wasn't making an argument per se there, I was presenting a fact about the reporting rules.

Now I ask you this,  what do you expect to come out of pointing out the violation of protocol? The case can be made that the whistleblower didn't follow proper protocol but does it therefore follow that the complaint must then be ignored? What argument can you make after that, that we should ignore alleged crimes over a procedural violation?

What you call protocol most people call procedure, which -- as I stated already -- is something every employee is not only trained on, but there are posters all through facilities with contact numbers, and even desk swag (mouse pads, calendars ...) with the information.  The gov't spares no expense or effort in making sure the "protocols" and options for complaints are no secret.

If this non-whistle-blower informant went outside of that process, he is either too stupid to follow directions, didn't pay attention in his training session, can't read a poster, and/or lost his mouse pad.

The result is what you see in this case -- a person pretending they want anonymity after already going outside of the IG process.  Only the IG is required to grant anonymity.  Congress is not.  Schiff has been lying over and over about a "statutory duty" to protect the whistle blower's identity.  He was challenged in the hearings to produce that statute.  He said he would.  Another lie.  He never has, because it doesn't exist.

What you call protocol most people call procedure, which -- as I stated already -- is something every employee is not only trained on, but there are posters all through facilities with contact numbers, and even desk swag (mouse pads, calendars ...) with the information.  The gov't spares no expense or effort in making sure the "protocols" and options for complaints are no secret.

If this non-whistle-blower informant went outside of that process, he is either too stupid to follow directions, didn't pay attention in his training session, can't read a poster, and/or lost his mouse pad.

The result is what you see in this case -- a person pretending they want anonymity after already going outside of the IG process.  Only the IG is required to grant anonymity.  Congress is not.  Schiff has been lying over and over about a "statutory duty" to protect the whistle blower's identity.  He was challenged in the hearings to produce that statute.  He said he would.  Another lie.  He never has, because it doesn't exist.

Ok, so the whistleblower should suffer some kind of consequence for not following procedure, but why should that affect the content of the complaint? If the complaint alleged a serious thing it still needs to be heard and investigated.

Ok, so the whistleblower should suffer some kind of consequence for not following procedure, but why should that affect the content of the complaint? If the complaint alleged a serious thing it still needs to be heard and investigated.

So if false allegations or improperly gained evidence reveals “a serious thing”, then it still needs to be followed?

Ok, so the whistleblower should suffer some kind of consequence for not following procedure, but why should that affect the content of the complaint? If the complaint alleged a serious thing it still needs to be heard and investigated.

In your world, everyone who accuses someone of a crime should be shielded from consequences via anonymity?

We have whistle blower protection laws that punish anyone whose actions rise to the level of retaliation.  Beyond that, anonymity is NOT part of the process once the report goes beyond the internal investigation -- in this case, the IG.

And, yes, if the person was SO concerned about remaining anonymous, he/she/it/they would have not contacted Schiff's office.  He would have called the hotline and asked ANONYMOUSLY what the process is.

You act like these are children.  They are adults with years of gov't service.  They know not only the process, but also where and how to ask questions.

Stop pretending someone who wants to report THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has no idea what they are doing and what it means.

So if false allegations or improperly gained evidence reveals “a serious thing”, then it still needs to be followed?

This would not fall under the fruits of the poisonous tree rule about evidence.

If the allegation is provably false then the whistleblower should be prosecuted for false reporting of some sort but that isn't the issue right now as there is no sufficient evidence to say the whistleblower lied.

All we have is a procedural violation by the whistleblower. It would seem rather silly to ignore a possible crime because it wasn't reported the right way. Imagine flagging down an HPD officer and telling him someone is killing a Hawaiian monk seal but then HPD tells you that you supposed to call DLNR instead but since you didn't do it the right way he isn't going to investigate.

In your world, everyone who accuses someone of a crime should be shielded from consequences via anonymity?

We have whistle blower protection laws that punish anyone whose actions rise to the level of retaliation.  Beyond that, anonymity is NOT part of the process once the report goes beyond the internal investigation -- in this case, the IG.

And, yes, if the person was SO concerned about remaining anonymous, he/she/it/they would have not contacted Schiff's office.  He would have called the hotline and asked ANONYMOUSLY what the process is.

You act like these are children.  They are adults with years of gov't service.  They know not only the process, but also where and how to ask questions.

Stop pretending someone who wants to report THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has no idea what they are doing and what it means.

I already told you, if the whistleblower violated a policy, procedure, or guideline then they can suffer the consequences but that doesn't mean you then ignore the crime being reported. You are failing to justify why the content of the complaint should be ignored just because the procedure wasn't followed.

I already told you, if the whistleblower violated a policy, procedure, or guideline then they can suffer the consequences but that doesn't mean you then ignore the crime being reported. You are failing to justify why the content of the complaint should be ignored just because the procedure wasn't followed.

That's not the issue. 

Investigate the complaint, but don't pretend the person has some right to anonymity AFTER HIS ACCUSATION BECOMES A FEDERAL CASE.

it's not about violating a policy.  It's about sticking your head out to talk to a Congressional staff, then afterward expecting special protections because you went to the IG.

Congress is not bound by the laws that govern the IG.  Schiff never did produce that statute he said protected the non-whistle-blower-informant's identity.

This would not fall under the fruits of the poisonous tree rule about evidence.

If the allegation is provably false then the whistleblower should be prosecuted for false reporting of some sort but that isn't the issue right now as there is no sufficient evidence to say the whistleblower lied.

All we have is a procedural violation by the whistleblower. It would seem rather silly to ignore a possible crime because it wasn't reported the right way. Imagine flagging down an HPD officer and telling him someone is killing a Hawaiian monk seal but then HPD tells you that you supposed to call DLNR instead but since you didn't do it the right way he isn't going to investigate.

Are you serious?

Who is said whistleblower? Has he/she/it provide direct evidence of what it witnessed?

How can anyone “provably false” something that one allegedly hear the grapevine?

You’re arguing based on “what if’s”. Again, how about proceeding based on FACTS and EVIDENCE?

The whole thing is moot already.  The whistle blower made a 'complaint', the 'authorities' are supposed to follow up and investigate, the original complaint turned up ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME.

So the dipsht Dees make up a bunch of BS 'evidence', charge the president of BS non crimes and impeach him, then turn around and refuse to cross it over to the Senate, because they know it will be tossed out faster than a baby poopy diaper...

This whole thing is a complete sham and mockery of the entire constitutional process, and the democrats have shown their colors.  They don't give two shts about their responsibilities as representatives, nor their OATHS to hold office.

 

The whole thing is moot already.  The whistle blower made a 'complaint', the 'authorities' are supposed to follow up and investigate, the original complaint turned up ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME.

So the dipsht Dees make up a bunch of BS 'evidence', charge the president of BS non crimes and impeach him, then turn around and refuse to cross it over to the Senate, because they know it will be tossed out faster than a baby poopy diaper...

This whole thing is a complete sham and mockery of the entire constitutional process, and the democrats have shown their colors.  They don't give two shts about their responsibilities as representatives, nor their OATHS to hold office.

The people on social media waking up on Friday and posting. "He's gone!! Finally!!!   #HappyImpeachmentDay" are in for a shock when Trump stays in office AND wins the 2020 election -- in spite of the House majority trying to interfere in the election.

Can't wait to see the backlash from those who believe impeachment = removal.  Even more looking forward to seeing how many think if Trump's gone, then Hillary will win the 2016 election retroactively.   

The people on social media waking up on Friday and posting. "He's gone!! Finally!!!   #HappyImpeachmentDay" are in for a shock when Trump stays in office AND wins the 2020 election -- in spite of the House majority trying to interfere in the election.

Can't wait to see the backlash from those who believe impeachment = removal.  Even more looking forward to seeing how many think if Trump's gone, then Hillary will win the 2016 election retroactively.   

THese people should have paid more attention during US history class in high school.  Had a friend post "Trumps gone now, next is Pence".  He deleted it 2 days later.  But the comments his other moron liberal friends also posted were comedic.

We should all roll with it.  Make believe killery is now president, and keep saying trump can't run.  The moronic useful idiots will forget to vote and the house can be retaken, and also 2020 presidential run.

They are so confused it would be funny, but it's not because morons can vote too.

4D chess

Clinton foundation is broke
Burisma cut off
Soros under fire

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

SNIP

They are so confused it would be funny, but it's not because morons can vote too.

Lots. Like 63 Mil in 2016

4D chess

Clinton foundation is broke
Burisma cut off
Soros under fire

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If you follow the series of events, Trump was attacked over Ukraine because he dared to go after one of the DNC's top people:  Joe Biden.  In DC, that's just not done.

Once Joe declared is candidacy, the Party ramped up their efforts to prop him up and protect him.  Why else would his poll numbers remain so far ahead of others after all the gaffs and scandals?

If Joe gets the nomination, Trump will eat his lunch.  He doesn't need any foreign, or domestic, "interference" to win the election.

Now that the Party has smeared the Ukrainian president as a liar and Trump puppet who'll say anything for Trump, it puts a negative spin on any investigation into Biden.

They are terrified and panicking.  It shows.