By Pie Guevara
Pie Guevara is an unregistered trademark of Engulf and Devour Investments LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Walton Industries which, in turn, is wholly owned by David Walton. So there!
The claim that Trump has traded anything to the Ukraine for personal gain has yet to be proved. Much less that he has committed an impeachable act. The so-called “whistleblower” complaint is based on hearsay and is unfactual.
On the other hand in 2018 Joe Biden literally bragged about his successful threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loans to Ukraine, an act for which his son materially benefited.
Joe Biden, while serving as vice president, pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son’s company. Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian national gas company Burisma in 2014 while his father was managing the United States’ Ukraine policy and despite zero personal experience in the field. At the time Hunter Biden joined its board, Burisma was embroiled in allegations of corruption, allegations serious enough that Ukraine’s prosecutor general launched an investigation into the company.
Joe Biden was so proud of his role in the prosecutor’s removal from investigating the company paying his son $50,000 per month merely to serve on its board that he actually bragged about it in a 2018 speech at an event for the publication Foreign Affairs. In this speech, Biden boasts his threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loans from Ukraine if they did not agree to fire the prosecutor who happened to be investigating the company giving his son a cushy sinecure.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/
On the other hand in 2018 Joe Biden literally bragged about his successful threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loans to Ukraine,
Yes. This threat was supported by the President of the United States, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, our European allies, and the IMF, because the Ukrainian prosecutor was refusing to investigate corruption.
an act for which his son materially benefited.
No. Burisma was not under investigation at the time Joe Biden made the threat (a threat that, again, was not his idea, but was official foreign policy backed by the entire Western world). The entire problem we had with the prosecutor was that he was not investigating corruption. If anything, removing the prosecutor could have been worse for Hunter Biden, since it meant his replacement might actually investigate Burisma more strongly.
You can discover all of this for yourself by consulting literally any fact-checker in the world, rather than the biased Federalist.
Trump’s threat to withhold aid from Ukraine unless they investigated Joe Biden was materially different from Joe Biden’s in a number of ways. It had no support even within his own administration. It was part of a “shadow foreign policy” that was being carried out by Rudy Giuliani, who has no official government position who himself was working with mob-connected Ukrainian criminals who have just been arrested for election interference. It threatened to renege on funds that had already been approved by Congress. And sources within the administration, including its top national security expert on Ukraine, believed there to be no national security purpose served by Trump’s demand that the Ukrainian president issue a public statement that Joe Biden was being investigated.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/28/774256868/read-ukraine-expert-lt-col-alexander-vindmans-opening-statement?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2OoAstEU6Rk-pA1cZK_PO-6rvPySwWIGVWE20VtS-kGckjxJqgMFamMuE
Deflecting back to Joe Biden is not going to work. A majority of Americans are not falling for it, and support impeachment and removal because they know that Donald Trump–a man who has never had a position of power that he has not bragged about abusing–abused the power of the presidency to target a political rival, endangering our foreign policy and national security in the process.
What evidence suggests that was Biden’s motive? Pretty much none. The problem with Shokin — in the eyes of U.S. leaders, their Western allies, the International Monetary Fund and many Ukrainians — wasn’t that he was being too aggressive about corruption, but that he was being far too lax. In May, Bloomberg News reported that prosecutors in Ukraine had shelved the investigation into Zlochevsky by 2015, meaning Hunter Biden didn’t stand to benefit from the prosecutor’s ouster. Vitaliy Kasko, who pursued the case against Burisma’s owner as deputy prosecutor and is now first deputy prosecutor in the new government, told Bloomberg News that there had been no U.S. pressure to close that case. Former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko also told Bloomberg News that Biden never asked him to close any cases.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/on-bidens-and-ukraine-wild-claims-with-little-basis-quicktake
Trump has falsely claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Ukraine’s largest private gas company, Burisma, which had added Biden’s son, Hunter, to its board in 2014.
AD
There are two big problems with this claim: One, Shokin was not investigating Burisma or Hunter Biden, and two, Shokin’s ouster was considered a diplomatic victory.
Biden was among the many Western officials who pressed for the removal of Shokin because he actually was not investigating the corruption endemic to the country. Indeed, he was not investigating Burisma at the time. In September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt publicly criticized Shokin’s office for thwarting a British money-laundering probe into Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.
“Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma,” Daria Kaleniuk, of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center, told The Washington Post in July. “And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.”
AD
In a 2018 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden bragged about his role in Shokin’s removal, saying he had withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees as leverage to force action. But Biden was carrying out a policy developed at the State Department and coordinated with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.
The Ukrainian prosecutor was regarded as a failure, and “Joe Biden’s efforts to oust Shokin were universally praised,” said Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist heavily involved in Eastern European market reforms. Getting rid of Shokin was considered the linchpin of reform efforts, but U.S. officials had a list of changes the government needed to make before it could obtain another loan guarantee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/27/quick-guide-trumps-false-claims-about-ukraine-bidens/
In a September tweet, Trump wrote that Biden demanded “the Ukrainian Government fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son, or they won’t get a very large amount of U.S. money.”
This accusation is misleading, as there was widespread and global criticism of the Ukrainian prosecutor general at the time. In other words, there were grounds for Biden to urge his dismissal that had nothing to do with his son. Several high-profile Western leaders have said Biden’s recommendation was prudent.
The International Monetary Fund, for example, threatened to withhold aid to Kiev in early 2016, while the former prosecutor was still in office, citing “Ukraine’s slow progress in improving governance and fighting corruption,” according to Christine Lagarde, then the IMF’s managing director.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-checking-trumps-accusations-ukraine-whistleblower-bidens/story?id=66194699
• Hunter Biden did hold a directorship for a Ukrainian gas company while his father was vice president. Experts agree that Hunter Biden’s acceptance of the position created a conflict of interest for his father.
• Vice President Joe Biden did urge Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, with the threat of withholding U.S. aid. But that was the position of the wider U.S. government, as well as other international institutions.
• We found no evidence to support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son’s interests in mind, as the message suggests. It’s not even clear that the company was actively under investigation or that a change in prosecutors benefited it.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/
But I’m sure every single fact-checker is wrong. Fake news! You can only trust the Federalist and other pro-Trump sources, because they’re way more honest than other sources!
How The Obama Administration Set In Motion Democrats’ Coup Against Trump:
“Rep. Devin Nunes realized the purpose of Obama’s dossier. ‘Devin figured out in December what was going on,’ says Langer. ‘It was an operation to bring down Trump.’
The following is an excerpt from Lee Smith’s book out October 29, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History.”
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/28/how-the-obama-administration-set-in-motion-democrats-coup-against-trump/?fbclid=IwAR2DTLs_MHqmLrph3SWxR0usmK-drzPdAjSgk7vs_bZSxuLxLlJrT1RZHSY
Ah, yes, the guy suing a fake cow for making fun of him is definitely a sleuthing genius who has unraveled this conspiracy!
The judge thinks it’s worth looking into, even if you don’t.
Judge wants real name of fake cow before acting on Devin Nunes’ Twitter lawsuit:
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/regional/the-west/article234502802.html
Interesting to bring Nunes up in regards to the impeachment inquiry. Turns out a Nunes aide misrepresented himself to the president as a top Ukraine expert in order to influence the White House in a more pro-Russia direction:
The decorated Army officer who testified to House investigators on Tuesday told lawmakers that a close associate of Republican Rep. Devin Nunes “misrepresented” himself to President Donald Trump in an effort to involve himself further in Ukraine policy, according to two people familiar with his closed-door deposition.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert, told lawmakers that after attending Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration in May as part of a delegation led by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Vindman had been looking forward to debriefing Trump and giving a positive account of Zelensky’s vision for Ukraine’s future.
Story Continued Below
“The U.S. government policy community’s view is that the election of Zelenskyy and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine’s Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity,” Vindman said in his opening statement.
Story Continued Below
But he was instructed “at the last second” not to attend the debriefing, Vindman told lawmakers, because Trump’s advisers worried it might confuse the president: Trump believed at the time that Kashyap Patel, a longtime Nunes staffer who joined the White House in February and had no discernible Ukraine experience or expertise, was actually the NSC’s top Ukraine expert instead of Vindman.
Vindman testified that he was told this directly by his boss at the time, NSC senior director for European and Russian affairs Fiona Hill.
Hill told Vindman that she and national security adviser John Bolton thought it best to exclude Vindman from the debriefing to avoid “an uncomfortable situation,” he said.
POLITICO previously reported that Hill testified that Trump thought Patel was in charge of Ukraine policy for the NSC, but Vindman’s exclusion from a key Ukraine meeting because of concerns over a potential conflict with Trump has not been disclosed before.
It helps explain why the president tweeted on Tuesday that he’d never met Vindman despite his clear interest in Ukraine — senior officials have said that Trump directed them to consult with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on matters of Ukraine policy.
And Vindman’s exclusion sheds even more light on the unusual steps top NSC officials were taking as early as May to avoid angering or annoying Trump on Ukraine issues — and the unusual level of access Patel had to the president.
“It’s crazy,” said one person familiar with Vindman’s testimony. “Vindman should have been in that meeting.”
Vindman also testified that he was told Patel had been circumventing normal NSC process to get negative material about Ukraine in front of the president, feeding Trump’s belief that Ukraine was brimming with corruption and had interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Democrats.
Story Continued Below
That upset Vindman, along with Hill and Bolton, he testified, because they were constantly having to counter that narrative with the president.
It’s still not clear what materials Patel was giving Trump, or where he was getting them. But he was not interacting with Ukraine experts at the State Department and Pentagon on the issue, and never had a conversation with Vindman, the NSC’s director for Ukraine, about Ukraine — or about anything for that matter, Vindman testified.
Patel joined the National Security Council’s International Organizations and Alliances directorate in February and was promoted to a senior counterterrorism role around the same time as Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky, in which he urged the newly elected leader to investigate Biden and “get to the bottom of” Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.
Patel had previously served as Nunes’ top staffer on the House Intelligence Committee and worked to discredit the FBI and DOJ officials investigating Russia’s election interference.
For that reason, Vindman was careful to not overtly criticize Patel so as not to anger Nunes — the ranking member of the intelligence panel — who floated in and out of the 10-hour deposition, according to a person familiar with his testimony.
Vindman, a combat veteran and Purple Heart recipient who has served in the Army for more than two decades, joined the White House in July 2018 as a detailee from the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He testified on Tuesday wearing his uniform, in keeping with past practice for active members of the military.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/30/nunes-acolyte-misrepresented-himself-to-trump-as-ukraine-expert-061763
This administration is a clown show. The president has no ability to determine between accurate information and sources and inaccurate ones, and bad actors are taking advantage of that in ways that compromise our relationships with our allies and make the world a less safe place. That alone is reason to impeach.
Re Chris: “But I’m sure every single fact-checker is wrong. Fake news!”
Interesting how every “fact checker” is part of the volunteer Democratic Party propaganda machine and appear to be a part of Biden’s spin machine. It also appears the “fact checkers” are not in possession of all the facts and that someone may be lying. Here is some info from The Hill’s John Solomon —
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
[Biden] insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden’s son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.
There’s just one problem.
Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.
And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election…
The memos raise troubling questions:
1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma’s American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?”
2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?
Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told Trump in July that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma.
Former Ukraine inspector general Viktor Shokin testified in a sworn affidavit before a European court “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors.”
“On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation.”
Relevant Solomon Interview Excerpts: “…the very day that Joe Biden managed to get that Ukraine prosecutor fired, that very day his son’s company’s lawyers, the American company lawyers helping Burisma trying to fight this investigation were trying to urgently reach the new prosecutor, the replacement prosecutor.”
“In that meeting, according to the official record from the prosecutor, the lawyers for Hunter Biden’s company stated to the replacement prosecutor, we know that the information calling Mr. Shokin was corrupt and was ‘False information distributed by U.S. Government officials and other figures. We would like to make this up to you by bringing you to Washington, you are not corrupt and you instigated numerous reforms.’ That is the official record of the meeting. Ukrainian prosecutors kept.”
I couldn’t even get through the whole first sentence in the article you quoted without spotting a lie:
[Biden] insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept,
No, not “solely because Biden believed” anything. As I explained already, the Obama administration as a whole, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the IMF, and our allies all believed Shokin was falling down on the job. What Biden believed has nothing to do with this. He was the Vice President for goodness’ sake. He could not have taken these actions based on his beliefs alone, and that is enough to destroy the conspiracy theory that this was done to protect Hunter Biden.
If you stepped outside your bubble you wouldn’t be citing John Solomon to me due to his extreme conflicts of interest. Much of his work relied on one Lev Parnas, one of the Giuliani-associated election fraudsters who was just arrested trying to flee to Vienna. Now tell me, is that a reliable source? Solomon didn’t seem to think so, as he didn’t reveal this source until ProPublica caught him. Are you aware of the complaints about Solomon from other Hill reporters that led to the Hill forbidding him from writing anything but opinion columns?
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-a-veteran-reporter-worked-with-giuliani-associates-to-launch-the-ukraine-conspiracy
Interesting how every “fact checker” is part of the volunteer Democratic Party propaganda machine.
This is cult-member language and you know better than that. You cannot dispute the facts in any of the fact checks I cited. Again, the entire Western world wanted Shokin gone. That your Solomon piece relies so much on Shokin’s word is an embarrassment.
Re: “…the Obama administration as a whole, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the IMF, and our allies all believed Shokin was falling down on the job. What Biden believed has nothing to do with this… Again, the entire Western world wanted Shokin gone.”
Meanwhile Hunter Biden continued to draw a $50,000 a month salary working for a company that was under investigation for corruption in Ukraine. How convenient. Daddy Joe really pulled a smooth one. He had THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD on his side.
Meanwhile Hunter Biden continued to draw a $50,000 a month salary working for a company that was under investigation for corruption in Ukraine. Again, the company was not under active investigation at the time Joe Biden and others were pressuring for Shokin’s ouster. The dealings that were being investigated ended in 2012, before Hunter Biden even joined. And Joe Biden could not have been motivated by his son’s work, since he was not the one making the decisions here; Obama was, and removing Shokin was supported by basically everyone. No one thought Joe Biden was wrong to implement this policy until Rudy Giuliani, with the help of John Solomon and the two Russian fraudsters that were just arrested, started whispering in Trump’s ear. I’ve said before that Hunter Biden should not have taken this position. But if you had a general anti-corruption stance regarding the kids of politicians getting jobs they aren’t qualified for, you’d be holding the Trump kids to the same standard. It seems that Burisma was trying to buy some kind of foreign influence by hiring Hunter, but it also seems clear that no such foreign influence was actually obtained. What exactly is your theory here? That Biden convinced the IMF, Ukrainian protesters, and all our Western allies to get rid of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect his son, who wasn’t ever under investigation, from a prosecutor who wasn’t currently investigating his son’s company? Do you really find that easier to believe than the idea that President Trump, who loves conspiracy theories and abuses of power, abused his power in this case in order to pursue a conspiracy against a political rival?
“Again, the company was not under active investigation at the time Joe Biden”
Baloney. The investigation had not been terminated.
“It seems that Burisma was trying to buy some kind of foreign influence by hiring Hunter, but it also seems clear that no such foreign influence was actually obtained.”
The prosecutor was fired effectively terminating his investigation. The price? $1 billion. Run along now Souza, you keep repeating the same garbage in comment after comment. Hunter Biden had no experience, knowledge nor expertise to sit on the board of directors. His only qualifications were that he is Joe Biden’s son and it paid off.
Joe Biden claimed to have never had a conversation about Ukrainian natural-gas producer Burisma with his son but Hunter has contradicted him and said he did. “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’ ”
Repeat after me: The very BEST way to enjoy Post Scripts is to completely IGNORE Chris and Lippy comments! Ya just can’t fix stupid!
The Genie is out of the bottle exposing Schiff for the liar he is and the democrat’s attack to get rid of Trump. McCarthy needs to read his name on the House floor tomorrow before the vote and into the official record.
REPORT: Secret Schiff whistleblower EXPOSED:
“Real Clear Investigations is saying they have the name of the whistleblower and are releasing it. Here’s a summary of all the information you want to know from Benny:
BREAKING
The White House “whistleblower” is Eric Ciaramella.
– Registered Democrat
– Worked for Obama
– Worked with Joe Biden
– Worked for CIA Director John Brennan
– Vocal critic of Trump
– Helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation hoax”
https://therightscoop.com/report-secret-schiff-whistleblower-exposed/?fbclid=IwAR0153BYRIVtp9gEiqT-Gg8tYse0v7g3fMr8sUhKcvEhP1K4SqrbePQb5ho
The Beltway’s ‘Whistleblower’ Furor Obsesses Over One Name:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html
Calling this person (whomever it is) a “whistleblower” is a disgrace and completely antithetical to what a whistleblower actually is and supposed to be. I came to that conclusion after learning the testimony was hearsay and nonfactual.
Don’t think for a minute that the truth will affect the Democrats’ path on the impeachment farce. They are committed, and that is a good thing.
Benny Johnson? Seriously?
You exist to be fooled.
Whistleblowers have always been able to pass on secondhand information, and not all of the information was “hearsay.” There was nothing “non-factual” about it; the main thrust of the complaint was confirmed by the transcript, and the details have been confirmed by Ambassador Hill, Ambassador Taylor, and General Vindman in their testimony before Congress. The attempts to smear the whistleblower are part of a desperate effort to change the story. The facts are clear: Trump made a public investigation into Joe Biden a condition for Ukraine to get military aid that was already approved by Congress. This served no legitimate government purpose and was done not to root out corruption, but to engage in it in order to serve Trump’s own political interests. This is an abuse of power and impeachable conduct. It is also yet another attempt to collude with a foreign power to influence a US election. This is black-and-white, and attempts to muddy the waters are failing, which is why most Americans support impeachment.
The thing is, Mr. Trump, virtually every piece of information that the public first learned from the whistle-blower’s complaint has been corroborated by the White House’s reconstructed transcript of your call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or by the congressional testimony and documents provided by current and former administration officials. In the few remaining cases, save one, journalists have backed up his assertions through reporting.
Below, the whistle-blower’s assertions are highlighted and annotated…
nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/26/opinion/trump-whistleblower-letter.html
More deep state being exposed.
Judicial Watch President: DOJ discovers ‘lost’ Ohr, Strzok texts and emails:
“The Department of Justice handed over 13 pages of “missing” text and emails between former FBI official Peter Strzok and Justice Department officials Bruce Ohr and Lisa Page. The department previously said those documents didn’t exist. One America’s John Hines spoke with Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton about these new disclosures.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCuFiljH78Q&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0-H5cWN0Qin5dCkd33YpVYljEZNaEGkrKz3lntCkfDe9M9vpqa1zXscw8
Good.
Re: Whistleblowers have always been able to pass on secondhand information, and not all of the information was “hearsay.” There was nothing “non-factual” about it.
Heresay:
Sometime between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated the requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. The previous form stated in a bold heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.”
Nonfactual:
1) The complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.
2) The complaint falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.
3) The complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. He was not.
Sometime between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated the requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. The previous form stated in a bold heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.”
This is yet another lie from the Federalist that has been fact-checked and proven false. See, this is what refusing to check your facts gets you.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/no-hearsay-rule-change-for-whistleblowers/
http://www.startribune.com/ap-fact-check-trump-s-fiction-about-whistleblower-complaint/561818702/
1) and 2) There is no full “transcript,” and a footnote in the document that was released explicitly says it is not a verbatim transcript. General Vidman confirmed in his testimony yesterday that parts of the call were omitted from the transcript.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/fact-check-trump-impeachment.html
3) There are conflicting reports on this and it has not been confirmed yet whether Brechbuhl was on the call or not. The whistleblower says he was told that Brechbuhl was on the call.
Of course none of these details changes the fact that Trump in fact threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if they did not publicly announce an investigation into a political rival over a bogus conspiracy theory, thus trading American foreign policy for a personal political favor. This fact has been confirmed by numerous witnesses who are on the record and testified before Congress, and is also clear from the partial, non-verbatim transcript of the call. Everything else is a distraction from this corrupt abuse of power.
Re: The previous form stated in a bold heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.”
This is yet another lie from the Federalist that has been fact-checked and proven false. See, this is what refusing to check your facts gets you.
I won’t bother to address the rest of Chris Souza’s baloney.
There exists photostats of the old form where it clearly states “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.”
From the “fact check” article Souza cited:
“It’s clear the language at issue is about what gets escalated, not what’s reportable,” tweeted Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Sanchez, whose studies focus on national security and intelligence surveillance. “What the form they’re citing” says is “‘this won’t go up the chain without something more,’ which the IG did indeed get in this case,” he explained in another tweet on the subject.
What part of “something more” does Mr. Souza not understand? So, who is the liar, eh? Fact: First hand information was required for a complaint to be considered, now it is not. That has recently been completely eliminated. According to Julian Sanchez the IG has indicated that there was “something more” in the complaint. That remains to be seen.
The point is now anything goes and first hand information is no longer required as a matter of policy (if not specific in the law which policy interprets). Therein lies the danger of “whistleblowing” degenerating into a disgruntled employee and/or politicized complaint. I propose it already has.
[Editied by Pie Guevara] You misunderstood what you read. [Summary: Blah, blah, blah, misrepresenting what I have said, mischaracterizing what I have addressed in a long winded flood of gobbldeygook. Mr. Sousa simply repeats what is covered by the article he linked to in an effort to waste my time and flood Post Scripts comment space.]
I did not misunderstand anything. Mr. Souza has had his say and linked to an article that actually agrees that there was a first hand knowledge requirement instruction and that it has been removed. I question that policy change. Nowhere have I claimed that hearsay could not be included. Mr. Souza has completely missed my point and to be honest, I could not care less that he ignores or misses it. He likely does so intentionally. Moreover I am not going to waste anymore of my time or nor allow Mr. Souza to abuse the Post Scripts comment space with repetitive posts, insulting rants and endless long-winded bloviation.
Jack, Pie is simply lying about what was in my comment to further a previous lie. There was no firsthand knowledge requirement for whistleblowers, as the article I linked to explains, and as I proved in my comment; the requirement is that the IC IG be told of firsthand knowledge, which he was given, and this has not changed.
Please do not allow Pie to edit my comments unless I violate one of Post Scripts’ rules. Right now your co-blogger is editing them for the sole purpose of erasing facts that counter his narrative. That makes this blog look very bad and you are better than that.
Wherein Chris calls me a liar. One of his favorite tools of “debate” next to accusations of racism, sexism and bigotry. This is his version of “civil discourse.” I am not “erasing facts.” Chris has had his say in spades. He does not get to hijack the comments section with repetitive and insulting bloviating diatribes. I am NOT referring to his comments about Trump. I am referring to his treatment of the authors of this blog and the other people who comment.
This was Pie’s original claim: Sometime between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated the requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. The previous form stated in a bold heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.” This claim is untrue, as the article clearly proves. The requirement for direct, first-hand knowledge applied to the IC IG in determining whether to consider an allegation credible; such firsthand knowledge was provided to the IC IG by other sources. Whistleblowers have never been required to provide direct, first-hand knowledge in order to make a report. And again, the whistleblower used the old form, not the new one, so these changes are irrelevant.
Again Mr. Souza is misrepresenting the facts. The article clearly admits that first hand knowledge was required as part of the instructions to file and that has been removed. I really do not know what his problem is. I suspect that his only intent is to muddle the issue I originally brought up.
The article clearly admits that first hand knowledge was required as part of the instructions to file and that has been removed
No. It says that it is required for the IG to consider it credible, not for the whistleblower to file. It says that right here:
In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information.
You deleted this quote earlier. You have provided no quotes that specifically say the whistleblower themselves must be in possession of first-hand information, because there was never any such requirement. You also deleted my link to the Trump-appointed Inspector General himself who made this clear.
Talk about weasel worded deflection and wasting time and space in Post Scripts. The instruction for first hand knowledge was included in the form instructions and it has been removed, period. The article Souza cited shows that. I have already addressed the policy about what the IG considers credible and what the law says and shall not revisit it. This latest post is just so much troll garbage from Souza. I cited Julian Fellows as cited in the article Souza linked to. Clearly Mr. Souza’s intent is to lie, misrepresent and attempt to hijack this blog comments section in order to distract the blog authors and followers with frivolous nonsense. Perhaps he should be shut down for a month to reflect. But a troll is a troll is a troll. Nevertheless, here is the original link he posted —
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/no-hearsay-rule-change-for-whistleblowers/
That article contains the link to contains the IG press release pdf —
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf
Read it for yourself.
The instruction for first hand knowledge was included in the form instructions and it has been removed, period.
The instruction applied to the IG, not the whistleblower, as you originally inaccurately stated.
And the whistleblower did not use the new form, they used the old one. So this was always a nonsense deflection.
I cited Julian Fellows as cited in the article Souza linked to.
No, you cited Julian Sanchez, who was referring to the requirements for the IG, not the whistleblower, as the parts before and after the section you selectively quoted made clear.
Mr. Souza lies when he says I deleted the post with the link to the IG. In fact, I followed that link, read the article and IG pdf press release.
No, you edited the direct link to the IG statement out of my comment. You left my comment with the link to the Fact Check article that links to the IG statement intact, but that is not the same thing. Now you are linking to the IG statement while pretending it supports your original argument about the form and the whistleblower, even though it directly refutes it, as anyone can see.
But again, none of this matters, because the central allegations of the whistleblower–that Trump abused his office by threatening to withhold congressionally approved aid to Ukraine if they did not publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens–has now been proven true by the partial transcript as well as three separate witnesses who have testified before Congress. I’m now convinced you are determined to deflect from this with these ridiculous games.
Re: No, you edited the direct link to the IG statement out of my comment.
No, I edited out a post from a bloviating troll repeating himself and using the comments section to insult, offend and draw attention.
The IG report concludes:
In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower’s filing, the ICIG has worked to
effectuate Congress’s intent, and the whistleblower’s intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community
I genuinely do not understand how Pie Guevara can claim that this supports his original allegations that 1) the whistleblower’s allegations were “hearsay” and 2) that “the intelligence community secretly eliminated the requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.” The report directly and clearly rebuts both of these claims. To pretend that it supports those claims is to lie fragrantly. A man of honor would simply admit the mistake.
“in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018.”
1) So, the rules (policy) about first hand knowledge did change at least by May 24, 2018. Instructions once in effect are no more.
2) The complaint is based in hearsay and if there is anything other than hearsay has as yet to be revealed despite how the form was filled out.
3) The policy was changed secretly and only recently announced long after the fact.
In any case, the first hand knowledge policy has changed as opposed to Mr. Souza’s false assertion that it never changed. But the whole point is moot. A complaint based on hearsay and which contains nonfactual assertions is being used by the Democrats as a basis of impeachment in a once secret kangaroo court. So far no first hand knowledge of the complainant has been revealed. We shall see what develops now that the Soviet style kangaroos will, evidently, no longer be able to operate under a cloak of secrecy falsely claimed to be for the sake of “national security.”
At least now we will be able to watch Schiff, prosecutor, un-recused material witness and judge lead testimony, shut down cross examination and deny the presidential representatives to introduce witnesses and testimony on his behalf.
This should be fun.
1) So, the rules (policy) about first hand knowledge did change at least by May 24, 2018. Instructions once in effect are no more. NO. The rules did not change. The form changed. The rules have stayed the same. The IG report you linked to after deleting my link clearly explain this.2) The complaint is based in hearsay and if there is anything other than hearsay has as yet to be revealed despite how the form was filled out.NO. The whistleblower claimed to have both firsthand and secondhand information. The IG report you linked to clearly explains this.3) The policy was changed secretly and only recently announced long after the fact.NO. The policy did not change, the form was changed. Again, the IG report you linked to clearly explains this. And there was nothing “secret” about it. I do not know what you expected; is it a major news story every time a form is changed? Again, the whistleblower did not even fill out the new form, and the form was changed to avoid confusion and reflected no policy or rule change whatsoever, so this is in no way news.
No, the rules (policy, instructions) did change as reflected by change in the form which, of course, reflects a change in policy. First hand knowledge is no longer a specifically stated (under a bold heading) criteria for filing a complaint.
Yes, according to the IG press release the “whistleblower” claimed to have firsthand knowledge but no firsthand knowledge has been revealed. Only hearsay.
This is sheer fabrication — “Again, the whistleblower did not even fill out the new form.”
“In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018.”
The “appropriate” form that was in effect IS the new form. The one that removed the first hand knowledge criteria instructions.
First hand knowledge is no longer a specifically stated (under a bold heading) criteria for filing a complaint.
First hand knowledge was never required for filing a complaint. You cannot quote the IG as saying that, or any form as saying that. First hand knowledge was required for the IG to consider a complaint as credible, and first hand knowledge was provided in this instance.
The IG explicitly says that the change in the form did not reflect policy, but was made to avoid exactly the confusion that you are spreading here about the requirements to file a complaint.
Now your claim is that the form change was made in May 2018? I thought the whole point of this canard was that the “secret” form change was done as part of a Deep State conspiracy to ensnare Trump? Now you’re saying it was done over a whole year before this complaint was even filed? So then what on earth is the problem with that? You’ve done nothing but prove this whole form business has been a diversion, a way to talk about something other than the president’s abuses of power. The majority of Americans are not fooled by these desperate attempts at deflection.
No, there were printed instructions, of which there are photostat copies, that said first hand knowledge is required. And yes, that change was not announced until just recently. I am not “claiming” the form was changed in May 2018, that is how the press release reads.
The form instructions and policy were changed to reflect what is stated in the law which, as explained in the press release, does not specifically require first hand knowledge. Previously policy did require first hand knowledge as a matter of procedure and a criterion. That has changed.
And with that, I am done with Mr. Souza who is bent on quibbling and wasting my time which his intent is and has been to begin with.
No, there were printed instructions, of which there are photostat copies, that said first hand knowledge is required.
Quote it, please. Or provide a link to a picture. The IG report says the exact opposite of this.
And yes, that change was not announced until just recently.
“Announced” to whom? Why would such a change be announced at all?
The form and policy was changed to reflect what is stated in the law which, as explained in the press release, does not specifically require first hand knowledge.
So now you are making a distinction between “policy” and “law.” You are arguing that previous policy regarding this issue broke the law? Why did the Inspector General not say that in his report?
And if it has always been the law that whistleblowers could report secondhand information, why did you take issue with the whistleblower for including secondhand information in his report–especially since, as the IG says, they also reported firsthand information? Are you now conceding that you were wrong to condemn the whistleblower for this?
Re: Quote it, please. Or provide a link to a picture. The IG report says the exact opposite of this.
Now Souza is just plain lying or addlebrained. He is dismissed.
From a “fact check” link Souza himself posted — The old form included two pages of background information on the ICWPA submission process. The section titled “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED”
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/no-hearsay-rule-change-for-whistleblowers/
You continue to selectively quote. The section you’re referring to says this:
The section titled “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED” said:
ICIG ICWSP Form 401, May 24, 2018: In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information.
In other words, first-hand information is not required for a whistleblower to make a report. It is required for the IG to consider a report credible.
You also have refused to admit you were wrong when you said the whistleblower only had “hearsay,” when in fact he had both firsthand and secondhand information.
So, after all of that the form was changed and probably changed in August 2019, just after the “whistleblower” used the old form. And he lied on the form saying he had first hand knowledge, which he didn’t. That’s a crime, right? One must not lie to the gov’t. Just ask Flynn.
From the above link.
“Furthermore, the ICIG statement said that the whistleblower who filed the Aug. 12 complaint against Trump used the old form — not the new one — and checked the boxes indicating that the claims were based on both direct knowledge of events and information obtained from others. (The new form still asks similar questions.)”
Peggy, remember, this is a government bureaucracy we are dealing with so things are a bit difficult to sort. This is my reading…
1) The policy on the requirement for first hand knowledge was eliminated in 2018 and the forms were changed to reflect this change in policy. This was done, ostensibly, because a first hand knowledge requirement is not specifically stated in the law.
2) The form was changed, but not “officially” changed until August 2019 and the policy and form change never announced publicly until the “whistleblower” nonsense came up as a basis for impeachment of the president.
3) The complainant used an old form that contained the instruction for the requirement of first hand knowledge and checked the box that he/she/it (or insert gender) did have first hand knowledge.
4) The complaint was moved forward under the new policy as government officials thought it urgent and credible.
To my knowledge no first hand knowledge of the phone call by the complainant has ever come to light.
Moreover in light of the phone call record there are factual errors in the complaint.
Lastly, Chris Souza — who evidently imagines himself some sort of one-person Monkey Wrench Gang in the Post Scripts comment section — is a few fries short of a happy meal. I will waste no more time with him. That he is, ostensibly, an educator sends chills up my spine. No wonder this state is going to hell. Quentin Colgan had his teaching credentials revoked in California. Could Mr. Souza be headed down the same path? One can only hope.
Good read, including the update.
Unpacking the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Complaint:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-intelligence-community-whistleblower-complaint
That is a good article, Peggy, I particular liked this part:
Finally, this is merely the latest in a series of actions taken by the Trump administration to defy what Congress has long considered its important institutional prerogatives. These include disregarding the appropriations process to build a border wall that Congress refused to fund, ignoring congressional subpoenas and contesting Congress’s very oversight authority. It remains to be seen whether members of Congress, particularly those who have long championed whistleblowers or who have, in matters such as Benghazi or Fast and Furious, insisted on wide-ranging congressional oversight, will, this time, defend congressional prerogatives, or whether they will continue to accede to the erosion of congressional power.
And he lied on the form saying he had first hand knowledge, which he didn’t.
On what are you basing this claim, Peggy? The IG said that the whistleblower did have firsthand information.