Maroon Dawn said:

---

Dear Metolius,

I have a question you will refuse to answer!

Here goes:

Every single Dem Witness testified that Trump had nothing wrong and or there was no QPQ

So are you just refusing to believe their testimony or do you think the Deep State Swamp Creatures are lying for Trump?

---

All Schiff's witnesses must have been lying. Its only the narrative that matters

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

If it's true that the ambassadors, NSC officials, and envoys were running a shadow campaign without Trump's knowledge I expect the White House to call for perjury or treason chargers against all 12 witnesses.

They're all telling the same story to implicate Trump, they must have conspired.

---

There has been no proof of a campaign, shadow or otherwise

---

Right. In which case these 12 witnesses are colluding and committed perjury. Trump should release all the documents and witnesses related to Ukraine to nail them. I bet this happens very soon.

---

They all - let me repeat - all, testified they did not think a crime was committed or had first hand knowledge of any QPQ. Stop huffing paint while watching CNN

Still on the Russia collusion conspiracy theory there bud?

Aiming for that Alex Jones interview?

hbtheduce said:

---

I can't believe Biden is resisting an investigation by the senate. This is the time for him to clear his name!

---

I would think he would welcome and cooperate with an investigation, or so I've been told

hbtheduce said:

---

Exactly, its proof he is guilty if he resists handing over information without due process. /libs

---

It borders on obstruction

hbtheduce said:

---

I can't believe Biden is resisting an investigation by the senate. This is the time for him to clear his name!

---

I hope Linsey Graham is in suicide watch

Catherine Herridge (now at CBS News):

Quote:

---

CBS News has reviewed documents that show the anonymous whistleblower reached out to the intelligence community watchdog on October 8 to clarify the nature of his or her contact with Democratic majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee before the complaint was filed.

---

Quote:

---

The whistleblower acknowledged reaching out to the committee, but claimed that nothing substantial was discussed and that the staff member directed them to go through official channels, according to the "Memorandum of Investigative Activity," provided to House and Senate Intelligence Committee leadership by intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) Michael Atkinson. The form is dated October 18 and documents the October 8 outreach by the whistleblower.

---

Quote:

---

According to the document, the whistleblower reported to the ICIG investigator that the committee staffer advised: "'Do it right, hire a lawyer, and contact the ICIG.' So that is what the COMPLAINANT did. At the time, COMPLAINANT did not even know what the ICIG was."

The whistleblower felt that "based on getting guidance on a procedural question, and that no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed, COMPLAINANT did not feel, based on the way the form question was worded, that it was necessary to check that box."

"That box" refers to the whistleblower disclosure form, which requires a detailed accounting of who is aware of the complaint. The box for "Congress or congressional committee(s)" was left blank by the whistleblower.

The whistleblower complaint that set the impeachment inquiry of President Trump into motion was filed in August and became public in September.

On October 2, the New York Times first reported that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff had "learned about the outlines" of the whistleblower's concerns before the complaint was submitted to the ICIG, citing a spokesman, as well as current and former American officials.

---

LINK

Sounds like some high level bull**** to CYA all the idiots involved in this "whistleblower" "impeachment" scheme.

Zemira said:

---

Sounds like some high level bull**** to CYA all the idiots involved in this "whistleblower" "impeachment" scheme.

---

What is actually surprising to me is that the original misnamed "whistleblower" report was more than likely drafted by his attorney, Mark Zaid. So having to amend it in that fashion is quite damning.

ETA: By "damning" I mean that they thought they wouldn't get caught. Still think Pelosi gave the green light to that Times article.

aggiehawg said:

---

Zemira said:

---

Sounds like some high level bull**** to CYA all the idiots involved in this "whistleblower" "impeachment" scheme.

---

What is actually surprising to me is that the original misnamed "whistleblower" report was more than likely drafted by his attorney, Mark Zaid. So having to amend it in that fashion is quite damning.

ETA: By "damning" I mean that they thought they wouldn't get caught. Still think Pelosi gave the green light to that Times article.

---

I am confused.

I understand that the whistleblower failed to check the box disclosing who is aware of the complaint (a lie) since the NYT's article came out on Oct. 2nd.

Two points I don't understand;
- what is the misnamed "whistleblower" report? Is that referring to the fact he/she is legally not a whistleblower which is bad enough.
-what amendments are you referencing?

Interesting read.

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/sergii-leshchenko-the-true-story-of-yanukovychs-black-ledger.html

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Zemira said:

---

Sounds like some high level bull**** to CYA all the idiots involved in this "whistleblower" "impeachment" scheme.

---

What is actually surprising to me is that the original misnamed "whistleblower" report was more than likely drafted by his attorney, Mark Zaid. So having to amend it in that fashion is quite damning.

ETA: By "damning" I mean that they thought they wouldn't get caught. Still think Pelosi gave the green light to that Times article.

---

I am confused.

I understand that the whistleblower failed to check the box disclosing who is aware of the complaint (a lie) since the NYT's article came out on Oct. 2nd.

Two points I don't understand;
- what is the misnamed "whistleblower" report? Is that referring to the fact he/she is legally not a whistleblower which is bad enough.
-what amendments are you referencing?

---

"Misnamed" because Eric Ciaramella is not a whistleblower under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) because the President is not a employee of the intelligence community nor is foreign policy an intelligence matter. It is an Article II enumerated power of the Executive.

Further, it was completely based on hearsay, from a source that even the IC IG thought may have political bias as a motive. While a finding that the complaint (report) may be credible, that didn't also mean it was true nor of an urgent nature.

But having to go back to the IC IG's office to "amend" his original complaint (report), when it was likely written by his attorney in the first place, to get his client out of a potential lying to a federal agency charge is a bad optic.

It is not unheard of for a client to lie to their lawyer, happens every day. BUT this attorney, Mark Zaid is one very outspoken guy who wears his agenda on his sleeve and his active twitter account. Since Ciaramella was sent to Zaid by Schiff's staffers (former NSC employees) the likelihood of concerted efforts between all parties is virtually guaranteed.

There are a lot of reasons Schiff is protecting Ciaramella. The original lie and subsequent amendment is one of them, in my estimation.

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

I am confused.

I understand that the whistleblower failed to check the box disclosing who is aware of the complaint (a lie) since the NYT's article came out on Oct. 2nd.

Two points I don't understand;
- what is the misnamed "whistleblower" report? Is that referring to the fact he/she is legally not a whistleblower which is bad enough.
-what amendments are you referencing?

---

"Misnamed" because Eric Ciaramella is not a whistleblower under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) because the President is not a employee of the intelligence community nor is foreign policy an intelligence matter. It is an Article II enumerated power of the Executive.

Further, it was completely based on hearsay, from a source that even the IC IG thought may have political bias as a motive. While a finding that the complaint (report) may be credible, that didn't also mean it was true nor of an urgent nature.

But having to go back to the IC IG's office to "amend" his original complaint (report), when it was likely written by his attorney in the first place, to get his client out of a potential lying to a federal agency charge is a bad optic.

It is not unheard of for a client to lie to their lawyer, happens every day. BUT this attorney, Mark Zaid is one very outspoken guy who wears his agenda on his sleeve and his active twitter account. Since Ciaramella was sent to Zaid by Schiff's staffers (former NSC employees) the likelihood of concerted efforts between all parties is virtually guaranteed.

There are a lot of reasons Schiff is protecting Ciaramella. The original lie and subsequent amendment is one of them, in my estimation.

---

Thank you for the response, I wasn't aware the whistleblower had to go back to the IC IG's office to amend the report.

This all stinks to the high heavens. It started before Aug 12th and went on until Oct. 18th. That's a lot of time for schiff to happen.

edit: screwed up dates

"We've got all the facts on our side." -- Nunes. But when asked by Fox News to explain what facts he means, Nunes refused to answer.

In the same interview, Nunes announced he'll be filing lawsuits against CNN and The Daily Beast immediately after Thanksgiving because they reported what Lev Parnas' lawyer Joseph Bondy told them.

"It is not OK to work with someone who has been indicted on serious federal crimes to build a media narrative and dirty up a member of Congress," Nunes said. "I will win in court, and they'll have a chance to cooperate, and they'll have to show how they work with somebody who has been indicted, which is likely conspiring to obstruct justice."

When did he start going insane?

He's sending criminals all over the world looking for dirt on Biden, but he's got "4 decades of documents" in his filling cabinet he can turn over any time he wants. Sure buddy.

Metty! Gary!

You're both back!

Maybe one of you can finally answer my question!

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Dear Metolius,

I have a question you will refuse to answer!

Here goes:

Every single Dem Witness testified that Trump did nothing wrong and or there was no QPQ

So are you just refusing to believe their testimony or do you think the Deep State Swamp Creatures are lying for Trump?

---

I do wonder how all those negatives and "nos" are passed over so easily. All the hair splitting is futile compared to that kind of answer on the bottom line points. Its a cinch that whatever happened doesn't justify fulfilling the Democrat's hyper-partisan desire to remove the President that they have had since January 2017.

Gary Johnson said:

---

When did he start going insane?

He's sending criminals all over the world looking for dirt on Biden, but he's got "4 decades of documents" in his filling cabinet he can turn over any time he wants.

---

Ordinarily I would agree. But not this time.

Rudy has a "RICO Chart". And Nunes says all the facts are on their side but he can't talk about it.

Checkmate, libs.

Watch Levin's episode tonight. It really lays out all the things the Democrats-MSM just willfully ignore, including the studied use of that line of dismissal of all these facts as "conspiracy theories".

From WaPo reporting:

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Hey Metty

Can't help but notice you won't answer my question...

---

He won't.

Breaking news, people in DC hang out with journalists.

Don't dig too deep, you might find the stories about journalists ****ing our intelligence officers for confidential information.

It was a kind of conspiracy cult, like scientology. They met every Tuesday to discuss their theories, normally sharing brownies and soft drinks.

Levin outlined New York Times articles affirming the Biden conflict of interest and Ukraine in May of this year. Its one of the things that made the episode interesting -- how its not really denied so much as ignored.

Gary doesn't want to answer my question either

So odd