Y'all, make sure to watch Maria Bartiromo. It was on at 9:00 AM, and it normally rerun in the afternoon, but it looks like you'll have to watch it on line.

Guiliani is pissed the entire time. For you legal guys, it's normally a staple to tell you client to shut the hell up. Should Guiliani keep his mouth shut?

Personally, I don't like it when any attorney I support to be emotional on television---good or bad.

Michael Mukasey is also on.

I watched it. Giuliani said he has been working on this since last November when he was approached by Ukrainians with intel about interference in the 2016 Election...because no one in the FBI would talk with them.

Quote:

---

The investigation began under the Obama Admin, but the WaPo is blaming Trump. Apparently the State Department has been investigating emails sent by former officials to HRC. My guess is they have been looking for people who sent her classified material as well as used non-secure government devices (phones) for transmitting classified mateials.

Wouldn't it be ironic if former officials were prosecuted/disciplined for sending HRC unauthorized classified intel but HRC skated?

---

Let's circle back around to this for a moment. When Hillary was Sec State, there was no acting IG over State, IIRC. So she was basically operating without any oversight nor whistle blower provisions in place.

Now, throw in many FOIA requests made to State by Judicial Watch and media outlets. Those FOIA requests, coming after Hillary had already left State were receiving ridiculous responses from State saying it would take them years to go through everything. Well, guess what? It has taken years because State basically had to go back and recreate the staff and process for State's own oversight procedures.

Would appear to me from the recent news that over a hundred current and former State employees have been contacted that Pompeo has corrected the previous defect and done so with a vengeance.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/25/ukraine-gate-is-about-the-russian-hack-that-wasnt/

Quote:

---

.....According to an October 2016 profile in Esquire, at the same time, the Obama Justice Department was concocting the Trump-Russia collusion ruse, Alperovitch and Henry were working with top Justice officials on cyber "war games." In March 2016 -- as the DNC email system allegedly was compromised by the Russians -- Alperovitch and Henry organized "four teams of ten people -- representing the government, the private sector, European and Australian allies" for the exercise. (Another participant included a former member of GCHQ, the British intelligence agency working with former CIA Director John Brennan in 2016 on the Russian collusion scheme.)

Among the officials working with CrowdStrike on the exercise was John Carlin, Mueller's former chief of staff and then head of the Justice Department's national security division. Carlin facilitated the October 2016 FISA warrant for Trump campaign aide Carter Page; he also received regular briefings from then-deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe on both the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia collusion probe. (Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community's inspector general at the center of the so-called whistleblower controversy, worked directly for Carlin in 2016 and 2017.)

Probably just a coincidence, right?
.....

---

Interesting tidbit regarding CrowdStrike. Seems CrowdStrike had Russia on its agenda in more than one way.

I wonder who the former GCHQ member was.

BTW, Julie Kelly comes across as an authentic investigative reporter.

That also makes both Carlin and Atkinson fact witnesses for Horowitz/Durham. Wouldn't it be something if Horowitz has made referrals to Durham on them both?

Would put a new optic on Atkinson's role in the non-whistle blower "whistle blower" crap.

My question about the former GCHQ Member has been answered:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/this-former-british-spy-exposed-the-russian-hackers

Quote:

---

The Justice Department has charged 12 Russian officials with hacking the DNC. Matt Tait helped shine a light on their meddling in 2016.
.....

Despite his modest demeanor, Tait was a key player in deciphering Russian election interference. On June 15, 2016, when the first trove of stolen documents from the DNC was leaked online under the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0; before the FBI launched an investigation into election interference; and before the U.S. intelligence community attributed the cyberattacks to the Russian government, Tait used publicly available information to compile incriminating evidence of metadata and technical slip-ups against the Russian intelligence agency GRU, concluding that the attack bore the hallmarks of a classic Russian influence campaign.
.....

Tait grew up in the English city of Chester. After graduating in 2008 from Imperial College, London, where he studied computer science and math, Tait joined the U.K.'s top digital intelligence agency, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). He worked in the Computer Network Exploitation division, which was tasked with hacking operations. His team was only about six people, but it was responsible for a large part of the agency's portfolio.
.....

He spent four years at the agency before moving to the private sector, where he worked at Google Project Zero and as a consultant for companies such as Amazon and Microsoft. In 2013, Tait started a Twitter account to counter false information during the fierce online privacy debate sparked by the leak of top secret documents stolen from the National Security Agency by former contractor Edward Snowden. At the time, Tait was frustrated by reports that made sensationalist claims contrary to what some of the leaked documents showed.
.....

In the spring of 2016, Tait started contributing to Lawfare, an online national security publication founded by Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution and law professors Jack Goldsmith of Harvard and Robert Chesney of the University of Texas at Austin. As a contributing editor, Tait often writes about the intersection of technology and law enforcement, the DNC hack, and election interference.

In June 2017, he published a bombshell account, "The Time I Got Recruited to Collude with the Russians," detailing his interactions with Republican activist Peter Smith, who wanted Tait to verify allegedly deleted emails from Hillary Clinton's personal server that he had learned about on "the Dark Web." Tait believed that Smith, who touted his relationship with former national security advisor Michael Flynn, was coordinating with the Trump campaign. "In my conversations with Smith and his colleague, I tried to stress this point: If this dark web contact is a front for the Russian government, you really don't want to play this game," wrote Tait. "But they were not discouraged."
.....

Tait's account also caught the attention of Robert Mueller. According to Business Insider, Mueller's team interviewed Tait during the fall of 2017 about his dealings with Smith, and records show he answered questions from the House Intelligence Committee in October. During our interview, Tait declines to discuss details of the ongoing investigation.
.....

---

This chap possesses all the hallmarks of a Deep State, CIA operator....very suspicious that he was part of the SpyGate scheme.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-05-29/ukraine-ex-president-accused-of-taking-key-servers-with-him

Quote:

---

Less than two weeks after Ukraine's new president assumed office, his staff discovered that his predecessor had apparently gutted key computer equipment in a meeting room when he left office.

Oleksandr Danylyuk, who was appointed chairman of the National Security and Defense Council on Tuesday, said all the equipment from the situation room, where the head of the state is supposed to be discussing urgent national security matters, is gone.

Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigations quickly announced the launch of an inquiry into a misuse of classified data......

---

The above happened in May, but I'll wager virtually no one knows about it. The computer server/equipment used by the former Ukrainian President (Poroshenko) mysteriously disappeared when the current President (Zelenskiy) assumed office. It sounds like a trick right out of HRC's playbook, doesn't it?

Could this be the server Trump was referencing in his phone call to Zelensky?

Quote:

---

Could this be the server Trump was referencing in his phone call to Zelensky?

---

Dunno. But remember it was CrowdStrike that authored that report about the hacking of Ukrainian Horowitzers by Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear. What else was CrowdStrike doing in Ukraine?

Deborah A. Curtis

Another short thread from Mrs. Beans

He's a loon.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/30/did-the-inspector-generals-office-help-the-whistleblower-try-to-frame-trump/

Quote:

---

.....To fully grasp the depths of the deception and duplicity, however, requires a familiarity with the governing whistleblower laws. Once those laws are understood, the latest attempt by the Deep State to take down our duly elected president become even more obvious. It also becomes clear that the "whistleblower" was not acting alone, and members of the intelligence community inspector general's office were likely providing an assist in the attempt to bury Trump. So here's your lawsplainer.

According to Law, This Is Not an 'Urgent Concern'

On October 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed into law the "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998," or ICWPA. This statute provides a mechanism for individuals in the intelligence community to share classified information with congressional intelligence committees. But -- and significantly, as we shall see -- the statute, by its terms, only applies to "a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern."

The ICWPA defines an "urgent concern" as involving one of three circumstances. In this case, the Ukraine "whistleblower" premised his complaint on only the first statutory definition, which provides that "an urgent concern" includes: "A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters."

The key here is the italicized language: Something is an "urgent concern" only if the misconduct is "relating to the funding, administration, or operation of intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence."

The whistleblower's complaint did not accuse the president of misconduct related "to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity." Rather, he charged Trump with "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election" (an allegation the transcript negates, in any event).

The director of national intelligence also does not have "the responsibility and authority" over Trump, further establishing that the ICWPA is inapplicable to the situation at hand -- which is exactly what the Office of Legal Counsel concluded in a memorandum opinion provided to the DNI general counsel: "The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community," Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel of the Office of General Counsel noted in concluding that the complaint did not trigger the ICWPA reporting requirements......

---

So you can see that Schiff & the MSM orchestrated public opinion to coerce disclosure of the whistleblower complaint even though the complaint was impermissible according to the statute.

The article also discusses the changing of the whistleblower complaint form to permit hearsay. I suspect that IC IG Michael Atkinson has already acquired a defense attorney, especially one affiliated with the Clinton/Obama camp.

Quote:

---

The article also discusses the changing of the whistleblower complaint form to permit hearsay. I suspect that IC IG Michael Atkinson has already acquired a defense attorney, especially one affiliated with the Clinton/Obama camp.

---

Atkinson is a black hat. He was too high up in DOJ Nat Sec to be either a very bad attorney or an idiot.

If the statute doesn't apply, there is no requirement to inform Congressional oversight.

But now comes the question: Will the House push a bad position and craft an Article of Impeachment based on obstruction under the ICWPA? That was the goal, apparently but Trump released the transcript. Also, if they do base an Article of Impeachment on anything having to do with the Zelensky call, the "whistle blower" won't ab able to hide from Trump's defense lawyers during the trial in the Senate.

I watched the entire Levine show last night where he interviewed Peter Schweitzer. The above is the opening sequence -- very impressive. Watch & you will understand why no one, even the Republicans, don't want to have Schweitzer testify at any hearings. It's not just that he knows everything about Ukraine & the Bidens, it's that he exposures the favorite Washington game played by both sides of the aisle: Get elected, go to Washington, and then become rich as well as make certain that friends & family also hit the jackpot.

Quote:

---

Also, if they do base an Article of Impeachment on anything having to do with the Zelensky call, the "whistle blower" won't ab able to hide from Trump's defense lawyers during the trial in the Senate.

---

Well, given the "whistleblower" is an electronically generated individual, I'm sure Schiff's legal team can fabricate a computer simulated accidental death of this Max Headroom individual that oddly was the result of Trump seeking revenge, and performed by some alt-right conservative person from Texas.

Before the Senate portion of the Impeachment trial, of course...no, better yet, just after Trump's Legal Team issues the subpoena for his presence...

Hawg,

Question about Whisteblower laws: do the laws state that it should be a first hand witness, and if so which one? Or is that left up to the IG in each department and its historically been for eyewitness complaints? Linked the tweet that has me asking.

Old form/process above. Revised form removed the above & replaced with:

From my review, the statute doesn't specify the type of evidence just the precise subject matters that trigger reporting requirements to Congressional oversight.

By practice however, the IG's office and the office of the DNI (being in the business of counter-intel and disinformation) has stated that they won't bother to seriously investigate a complaint without first hand personal knowledge. It's not hard to see why they would adopt that standard, to prevent them from chasing their own tails in disinformation and counter intel probes.

Spycraft involves lots of push-pull and other shady things in the recruitment and retention of assets. Someone who is not in the loop on the operation could easily take something out of context and see illegality happening.

Make sense?

aggiehawg said:

---

From my review, the statute doesn't specify the type of evidence just the precise subject matters that trigger reporting requirements to Congressional oversight.

By practice however, the IG's office and the office of the DNI (being in the business of counter-intel and disinformation) has stated that they won't bother to seriously investigate a complaint without first hand personal knowledge. It's not hard to see why they would adopt that standard, to prevent them from chasing their own tails in disinformation and counter intel probes.

Spycraft involves lots of push-pull and other shady things in the recruitment and retention of assets. Someone who is not in the loop on the operation could easily take something out of context and see illegality happening.

Make sense?

---

Yes, so it wasn't required statutorily. Is it fair to say that the reason its "not hard to see" is based on our justice system itself, if a Whistleblower only provided second hand information, it makes it less actionable (wouldn't be admissible in court)?

Thanks you two for the responses.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/09/30/straight_shooter_justice_dept_watchdog_has_held_his_fire_on_the_top_brass_120565.html

Some people are skeptical about whether or not Horowitz will lower the boom on the schemers.

Short video...a little slip by Nancy.

i heard laurence tribe speak last week in DC. The "greatest expert" on the constitution and I guess most law schools use his book to discuss the constitution.

Dude is a liberal fraud and everything he discussed that they should impeach trump was opinionated. This is the crap that is spewed in Harvard all day I guess from him. I heard a few congressman talk and they never mentioned the impeachment. Just the choas.

Quote:

---

Yes, so it wasn't required statutorily. Is it fair to say that the reason its "not hard to see" is based on our justice system itself, if a Whistleblower only provided second hand information, it makes it less actionable (wouldn't be admissible in court)?

---

Whistle blower statutes not only address criminal actions but agency waste, fraud and abuse that doesn't rise to a prosecutable crime.

Besides, the hearsay part can be later corroborated with direct evidence that would be admissible at trial, if any.

But consider how this whole whistle blower story was rolled out. It started out being a trap for obstruction. That Trump and "pet" AG Barr were blocking DNI Maguire from reporting an "urgent concern" to Congressional oversight. There is a provision (section 3033) that would appear to mandate such reporting, so if DNI didn't report it, it was obstruction. Only, DOJ looked at it and the Office of Legal Counsel (which is comprised of career DOJ attorneys, not appointee) and said it was a misapplication of the statute. It did not apply to Trump and further didn't meet the statutory definition of "urgent concern."

Now Pelosi is saying she already knew the contents of the whistle blower complaint before it was released. How did that happen? Was there collusion between the House Dems and the whistle blower and when did it start?

This seemed interesting with Crowdstrike coming up on this page.

What happened to all of the posts today?

https://www.scribd.com/document/428134118/House-GOP-letter-to-ICIG#from_embed

Haven't read it just posting in case anyone is interested

will25u said:

---

Haven't read it just posting in case anyone is interested

---

No bias in that tweet.

The Dems/Media/GOPE are obviously attempting to make ANY investigation into the 2016 election or IC illegitimate.

Reporting on Barr doing his job is one way to go

https://www.usatoday.com/documents/6434823-Status-Report/

The actual article is paywalled to me.
(And Barr just returned from Italy -- it wasn't for a vacation. I'll wager Trump greased the skids for Barr's visit for the same purpose...to uncover the origins of the SpyGate plot.)