Second intel officer...

Davocrat

Former Staff
Apr 2007
53,935
43,108
Deep State
I should start all my threads here with "We told you so."

Next time, let's get somebody who understands and respects the office.

-------------------------------------------


A second intelligence official is considering whether to file a whistleblower complaint and testify before Congress about their concerns over President Trump's dealings with Ukraine, The New York Times reported Friday, citing two people briefed on the matter.

The Times reported that the officer has more direct information about the situation involving Trump than the first whistleblower, whose complaint filed in August helped spark the impeachment inquiry into Trump that House Democrats launched last week.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson has reportedly interviewed the person to corroborate the original whistleblower's claims.
 
Oct 2013
27,057
23,470
USA
This is how Nixon fell. It only takes brave Whistleblowers to stop a President who is out of control. Make no mistake, when Nixon was first outed the public didn't want him impeached but as evidence grew the voices to impeach grew and where impeachment is concerned public sentiment plays a very large role. We'll see how the public feels as more is revealed.
 
Sep 2016
23,649
18,746
My own world
I should start all my threads here with "We told you so."

Next time, let's get somebody who understands and respects the office.

-------------------------------------------


A second intelligence official is considering whether to file a whistleblower complaint and testify before Congress about their concerns over President Trump's dealings with Ukraine, The New York Times reported Friday, citing two people briefed on the matter.

The Times reported that the officer has more direct information about the situation involving Trump than the first whistleblower, whose complaint filed in August helped spark the impeachment inquiry into Trump that House Democrats launched last week.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson has reportedly interviewed the person to corroborate the original whistleblower's claims.
It matters not, Trump and the GOP have made up their mind that Trump can literally kill someone on the floor of the House and they would say the President has a right to murder anybody he choses.

The only thing that a second IA officer would do is convince a few more voters Trump's got to be voted out if the Senate won't toss him out before 2020. The House has to waste no time in requested an emergency hearing re the refusal to comply with the subpoenas and one that challenges the memo of the JD that the President can't be indicted.
 
Last edited:

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
94,442
61,629
becoming more and more
I should start all my threads here with "We told you so."

Next time, let's get somebody who understands and respects the office.

-------------------------------------------


A second intelligence official is considering whether to file a whistleblower complaint and testify before Congress about their concerns over President Trump's dealings with Ukraine, The New York Times reported Friday, citing two people briefed on the matter.

The Times reported that the officer has more direct information about the situation involving Trump than the first whistleblower, whose complaint filed in August helped spark the impeachment inquiry into Trump that House Democrats launched last week.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson has reportedly interviewed the person to corroborate the original whistleblower's claims.
"more direct information"....they sure know how to keep the audience on the edge don't they.
....
 
Dec 2014
17,722
6,445
The Milky Way
The Act does not apply to a POTUS, it only applies to members of the intelligence agencies whistleblowing on others in the intelligence agencies and over specific matters, disagreements over policy are not allowed. So more law breaking (if the Times is in fact correct) being supported by the Dims.

The Act defines a matter of "urgent concern" as:​

  1. a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
  2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
  3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee's reporting an urgent concern.


 
Sep 2016
23,649
18,746
My own world
The Act does not apply to a POTUS, it only applies to members of the intelligence agencies whistleblowing on others in the intelligence agencies and over specific matters, disagreements over policy are not allowed. So more law breaking (if the Times is in fact correct) being supported by the Dims.

The Act defines a matter of "urgent concern" as:​

  1. a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
  2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
  3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee's reporting an urgent concern.




The dozen or so people on the call listening were not the Potus. The law was broken and those listening did not report it to the FBI as it was a serious violation. Chris Wray was quite straight forward that interference by foreign gov't into election matters should be reported to them. The several other people that received a summary didn't report it either and finally whoever purposely missed filed the tape and summary in a system meant only for the most classified of material is guilty of covering up a crime and nobody reported that to the FBI.

Barr is going to get challenged on wether he should actually keep his law license given flaunting the law that he is suppose to uphold and not stepping aside given his name is mentioned in the WB complaint.
 
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59

HayJenn

Former Staff
Jul 2014
72,406
63,478
CA
The Act does not apply to a POTUS, it only applies to members of the intelligence agencies whistleblowing on others in the intelligence agencies and over specific matters, disagreements over policy are not allowed. So more law breaking (if the Times is in fact correct) being supported by the Dims.

The Act defines a matter of "urgent concern" as:​

  1. a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
  2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
  3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee's reporting an urgent concern.



Odd how John Dean was "protected" right?
 
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59

HayJenn

Former Staff
Jul 2014
72,406
63,478
CA
A new complaint, particularly from someone closer to the events, would potentially add further credibility to the account of the first whistle-blower, a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to the National Security Council at one point. He said that he relied on information from more than a half-dozen American officials to compile his allegations about Mr. Trump’s campaign to solicit foreign election interference that could benefit him politically.

Because the second official has met with Mr. Atkinson’s office, it was unclear whether he needs to file a complaint to gain the legal protections offered to intelligence community whistle-blowers. Witnesses who speak with inspectors general are protected by federal law that outlaws reprisals against officials who cooperate with an inspector general.

Still, testimony from someone with more direct knowledge of Mr. Trump’s efforts to use American foreign policy for potential political gain would most likely undermine conservatives’ attacks on the C.I.A. officer’s credibility.

 
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59