How to Make an Ass of Yourself

By Pie Guevara

Pie Guevara appears in Post Scripts courtesy of Jack Lee and Tina Grazier. 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!

 

At first this was to be a reply in the comments section but then I decided to elevate it to front page status because it is so exemplary of how some folks think. (Addendum: And shows just how ridiculous handling comments can be.) The actual commenter’s name has been changed for two reasons —

  1. I do not seek to embarrass the commenter publicly and discourage him/her/it/insert gender from posting comments.
  2. I do not wish to grant in a blog post the attention that he/she/it/insert gender is so desperate to get.

To this end I shall henceforth identify the comment contributor as Person X

(Please note that in the above I am sincerely trying to be inclusive of all genders . Post Scripts is nothing if not inclusive.)

The following is a copy and paste from Person X’s comment posted Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:47 pm under my Posts Scripts blog post “Watch Joe Biden Brag About Bribing Ukraine.”

Person X’s Comment In its Original Entirety —

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.

In the following deconstruction of Person X’s comment post his comments will appear in bold except when it is for my own for emphasis.

Please also note that when I refer to Person X or anyone else in any of the once commonly accepted all gender inclusive pronouns I am only doing so for the sake of brevity and not assuming or assigning gender.  Please be so kind as to mentally substitute whatever gender pronouns you are comfortable with.

Person X: You continue to selectively quote.

That statement and what it implies is utter nonsense. When I selectively quote it is for the sake of brevity unlike Person X’s next bit of Ridiculese where Person X selectively quotes the document under examination (the old whistleblower form) to support his next assertion.

Person X: 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.

That interpretation is patently absurd. The pertinent parts of the old form with regard to first-hand knowledge are as follows —

IC IG ICWSP Form 401 Rev: 24MAY18
FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information… If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA. (Italic emphasis mine.)

Clearly the filer, unless he is as comprehension challenged as Person X, would know that his complaint would go nowhere without first-hand knowledge and be round filed. In other words, Person X, under the old policy it was incumbent upon the filer to have first-hand information. Otherwise his complaint would not be submitted as an ICWPA.

Post Scripts readers can examine the old form in its entirety here for themselves.

Person X: 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.

I have not “refused” anything and neither have I been “wrong.” Evidently Person X not only cannot understand the old complaint form’s instructions, he misinterprets what I stated in the blog post.

1) I have not and have never stated that the complainant only had “hearsay.” In my post I stated that it was “based on hearsay” not “based only on hearsay.” I have not made any statement whatsoever that the complaint form filed contains no first-hand knowledge.

2) Despite using the old form — which required that the complainant actually have first-hand knowledge — it has been widely reported that the complaint testimony submitted to the Democrats’ kangaroo court consists of hearsay.

For example — “The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.”

Moreover the testimony has been characterized as hearsay by members of the legislature who are in a position to know.

3) The declassified complaint states: “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.” (My emphasis.)

Nowhere have I read of anyone, in the media or in government, saying that the complaint contains any first-hand knowledge that is of any particular significance. Neither have I been able to find any first-hand knowledge of particular significance in the declassified transcript. Perhaps Person X has found some.

Of further interest: General counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jason Klitenic, has argued that the allegation does not meet the definition of “urgent concern.” Klitenic wrote Schiff on September 15, 2019 that based on consultations with the DOJ, “we determined that the allegations did not fall within the statutory definition of an ‘urgent concern’ and that the statute did not require the complaint to be transmitted to the intelligence committees.”

As a side note, in a reply to Peggy (Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 8:32 am) in the same comment thread under my Posts Scripts blog post “Watch Joe Biden Brag About Bribing Ukraine” I stated “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.”

My post stands as is. Person X can go pound sand.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to How to Make an Ass of Yourself

  1. J. Soden says:

    Regular readers of PS will recognize who Person X is. Well done, Pie!!!!!

  2. Chris (Person X if you're nasty) says:

    Skipping past the weird, try-hard gimmick and getting straight to the meat of it:

    Me, an idiot: 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, a genius: That interpretation is patently absurd.

    It cannot be, because it’s what the Trump-appointed IG said, and he should know, and he has no reason to mislead. He says it right here:

    Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant– or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.

    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

    If the whistleblower were required to provide firsthand information, why would there even be a box to check for secondhand information? That seems more absurd to me.

    And, of course, the whistleblower provided both, as you admit here, so none of this even matters:

    1) I have not and have never stated that the complainant only had “hearsay.” In my post I stated that it was “based on hearsay” not “based only on hearsay.” I have not made any statement whatsoever that the complaint form filed contains no first-hand knowledge.

    If you claim that something is “based on hearsay,” and don’t include the fact that there was also firsthand information included, you are implying the word only. Surely a master of logic such as yourself knows this. Any reader of your comment would infer that based on what you wrote, the whistleblower provided only secondhand information. So either you didn’t know that the whistleblower also provided firsthand information at the time, or you did know, and were attempting to mislead. I really don’t understand why you can’t just adopt the first defense, instead of continuing to insist you were right in your original comment despite your clear wrongness. Claiming that you did not mean to imply that the whistleblower had only hearsay in your original comment is a massive moving of the goalposts, and it isn’t fooling anyone paying attention.

    Nowhere have I read of anyone, in the media or in government, saying that the complaint contains any first-hand knowledge that is of any particular significance.

    The phrase “of any particular significance” is doing a lot of work in this sentence. The IG says in his report that the whistleblower did provide firsthand information.

    Of further interest: General counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jason Klitenic, has argued that the allegation does not meet the definition of “urgent concern.” Klitenic wrote Schiff on September 15, 2019 that based on consultations with the DOJ, “we determined that the allegations did not fall within the statutory definition of an ‘urgent concern’ and that the statute did not require the complaint to be transmitted to the intelligence committees.”

    You are quoting someone who is currently defying House subpoenas. Forgive me if I find him less credible than the Trump-appointed Inspector General who put out this memo precisely to combat this misinformation spread by the Federalist, you, and other assorted Trumpers.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/acting-spy-chief-headed-for-clash-with-capitol-hill-after-failing-to-turn-over-whistleblower-complaint/2019/09/17/d4b14ba4-d9a1-11e9-a688-303693fb4b0b_story.html

  3. Joe says:

    I can already here the sousaphone blowing…

    Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, newly released memos show.

    During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. (I filed that suit this summer with the help of the public interest law firm the Southeastern Legal Foundation.)

    Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election.

    Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the meeting. The subject line for the email exchanges read simply “Burisma.”

    “Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption,” a Feb. 24, 2016, email between State officials read. “She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member).

    The Bidens are corrupt as Hell as are all the swamp creatures.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/burisma-pressured-obama-admin-weeks-joe-biden-got-ukrainian-prosecutor-fired

    • Peggy says:

      Sooo, the Bidens lied and the media is covering for them. Shocker! We all knew that now there’s emails/Tweets to prove it. Bye bye Sleepy Joe.

      John Solomon is one hell of an investigative reporter.

      Long version:
      https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/

      Short version:
      https://video.foxnews.com/v/6100535900001/#sp=show-clips

      • Chris says:

        He is not. Even his colleagues at the Washington Examiner don’t think so, which is why he was reassigned from reporting to opinion columns.

        • Peggy says:

          From National Law Review:
          “Professional Biography:
          Award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon joined the Center for Public Integrity in March 2010,. During his quarter-century career in print and broadcast media, Solomon has covered a variety of issues, from the convicted serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer to an in-depth look at teachers who returned to classrooms after child molestation convictions. In 2008 Solomon joined The Washington Times as executive editor. Under his leadership, the paper won the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award in 2008 and the Society of Professional Journalists’ 2009 National Public Service Award. Before joining the Times, Solomon was a national investigative correspondent at The Washington Post, where he uncovered former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s secret security firm clients, former Sen. John Edwards’ relationship with a controversial hedge fund, and the FBI’s misuse of an anti-terrorism tool that allowed agents to gather phone and computer records of Americans without court approval. While at the Post, he also produced its first joint project with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” exposing faulty decades-long FBI crime lab bullet analyses that were used to convict hundreds of people. The series won the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Journalism Award for domestic television in 2008 and the Society of Professional Journalists’ top award for investigative TV reporting. Solomon also spent 20 years as a manager and journalist for The Associated Press, where he oversaw a seven-member investigative team. It exposed Dubai Ports World’s deal to buy several major U.S. ports, which triggered political pressure forcing the company to re-sell the properties to an American firm. The team also uncovered a now-infamous Hurricane Katrina videotape contradicting President George W. Bush’s later claims that top government officials did not expect the storm surge to breach New Orleans’ levees.”
          https://www.natlawreview.com/author/john-solomon

  4. Peggy says:

    Republicans on the Impeachment committee’s first eye witness will be Schiff, since he’s a fact witness. Will he show up since under his partisan rules he has the right to approve and reject all witnesses.

  5. Libby says:

    “… but then I decided to elevate it to front page status because it is so exemplary of how some folks think.”

    Ain’t that the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *