Did Whistleblower rules (law) change in August to permit 2nd hand info?

[Rhea]

Someone raised this claim in my hearing. I googles some, found only mention on Federalist, RedState and their ilk. Can't find anything else. Does anyone know about this?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

In Reality America nothing is real, everything is real.

 

[Bronzeage]

That would depend on the definition of secondhand information. If an intelligence officer reads a transcript of a conversation he did not actually hear, that could be secondhand, but he is reading a primary source.

It doesn't really matter at this point. An impeachment is not a court trial, where the rules of evidence are carefully observed. What matters is what happened, not how it was discovered.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

That would depend on the definition of secondhand information. If an intelligence officer reads a transcript of a conversation he did not actually hear, that could be secondhand, but he is reading a primary source.

It doesn't really matter at this point. An impeachment is not a court trial, where the rules of evidence are carefully observed. What matters is what happened, not how it was discovered.

Which is why we're going down the "secondhand information" detour in the first place; to obscure what happened.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Someone raised this claim in my hearing. I googles some, found only mention on Federalist, RedState and their ilk. Can't find anything else. Does anyone know about this?

All my briefings at work stress thst if i become aware of illicit activity, i should say something. They do not say that i have to be implicated or complicit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That would depend on the definition of secondhand information. If an intelligence officer reads a transcript of a conversation he did not actually hear, that could be secondhand, but he is reading a primary source.

It doesn't really matter at this point. An impeachment is not a court trial, where the rules of evidence are carefully observed. What matters is what happened, not how it was discovered.

Which is why we're going down the "secondhand information" detour in the first place; to obscure what happened.

We?
Seems more like an ad hominem attack. Can't stop the signal, call the transmitter a rotten fink.

 

[Rhea]

I agree on all counts that "second hand" should be allowed. But I can't figure out this claim that it is only now allowed (since August) in order to get whistleblower protection.

I have search and searched, but can't see anything outside of the wingnut fringe. Not a single mention in respectable news.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

That would depend on the definition of secondhand information. If an intelligence officer reads a transcript of a conversation he did not actually hear, that could be secondhand, but he is reading a primary source.

It doesn't really matter at this point. An impeachment is not a court trial, where the rules of evidence are carefully observed. What matters is what happened, not how it was discovered.

Which is why we're going down the "secondhand information" detour in the first place; to obscure what happened.

We?
Seems more like an ad hominem attack. Can't stop the signal, call the transmitter a rotten fink.

Isn't every unpleasant reality "fake"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I agree on all counts that "second hand" should be allowed. But I can't figure out this claim that it is only now allowed (since August) in order to get whistleblower protection.

I have search and searched, but can't see anything outside of the wingnut fringe. Not a single mention in respectable news.

They want to pretend he's not really a whistleblower, so they can ignore the complaint, prosecute the complainer for complaining.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We?
Seems more like an ad hominem attack. Can't stop the signal, call the transmitter a rotten fink.

Isn't every unpleasant reality "fake"?

Um, no. That would be psychotic.

I have lived a life that has been unpleasant time and again. Calling the flooding casualty 'fake'would have done nothing to get water back out of the people tank.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

We?
Seems more like an ad hominem attack. Can't stop the signal, call the transmitter a rotten fink.

Isn't every unpleasant reality "fake"?

Um, no. That would be psychotic.

I have lived a life that has been unpleasant time and again. Calling the flooding casualty 'fake'would have done nothing to get water back out of the people tank.

You sound like an outlier societally then.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Apparently numerous people other than the whistle blower knew bad stuff was happening. Intelligence officers deal with information. Some direct, some not direct, that is the nature of the job. It now depends on if other people were in contact with the whistle blower and reporting what they knew and if they had first hand knowledge or not, and of what. If someone knows that telephone calls were being mischaracterized to move to a secret data system, this is an abuse of power and it is not "hearsay".

This is going to be very well investigated and the "hearsay" charge probably in the end, is not going to fly. We will see a parade of ex-intelligent officials chewing this over on MSNBC as this stroy develops and investigations are undertaken.

The Hill:
Former CIA chief and vocal Trump critic John Brennan said Thursday he believes the person who filed a whistleblower complaint against President Trump "deserves our praise and gratitude."

It does not sound like John Brennan, for CIA head buys into this hearsay nonsense. I am sure we will hear more from Brennan as this unfolds.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Apparently numerous people other than the whistle blower knew bad stuff was happening. Intelligence officers deal with information. Some direct, some not direct, that is the nature of the job. It now depends on if other people were in contact with the whistle blower and reporting what they knew and if they had first hand knowledge or not, and of what. If someone knows that telephone calls were being mischaracterized to move to a secret data system, this is an abuse of power and it is not "hearsay".

This is going to be very well investigated and the "hearsay" charge probably in the end, is not going to fly. We will see a parade of ex-intelligent officials chewing this over on MSNBC as this stroy develops and investigations are undertaken.

The Hill:
Former CIA chief and vocal Trump critic John Brennan said Thursday he believes the person who filed a whistleblower complaint against President Trump "deserves our praise and gratitude."

It does not sound like John Brennan, for CIA head buys into this hearsay nonsense. I am sure we will hear more from Brennan as this unfolds.

It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers that our system's ability for self-correction via checks and balances has been seriously overly estimated.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Um, no. That would be psychotic.

I have lived a life that has been unpleasant time and again. Calling the flooding casualty 'fake'would have done nothing to get water back out of the people tank.

You sound like an outlier societally then.

If that were true, a lot more people would be hit by cars....

 

[TV and credit cards]

Apparently numerous people other than the whistle blower knew bad stuff was happening. Intelligence officers deal with information. Some direct, some not direct, that is the nature of the job. It now depends on if other people were in contact with the whistle blower and reporting what they knew and if they had first hand knowledge or not, and of what. If someone knows that telephone calls were being mischaracterized to move to a secret data system, this is an abuse of power and it is not "hearsay".

This is going to be very well investigated and the "hearsay" charge probably in the end, is not going to fly. We will see a parade of ex-intelligent officials chewing this over on MSNBC as this stroy develops and investigations are undertaken.

The Hill:
Former CIA chief and vocal Trump critic John Brennan said Thursday he believes the person who filed a whistleblower complaint against President Trump "deserves our praise and gratitude."

It does not sound like John Brennan, for CIA head buys into this hearsay nonsense. I am sure we will hear more from Brennan as this unfolds.

I think for this reason, the whistleblower was simply used as a information collection point to compile the story from the various sources. Surely the whistleblower was not doing this without the understanding that those forwarding him the information would stand behind it when the time came.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Exactly. I strongly suspect that as this unfolds over the next few weeks, on MSNBC, with Ari Melber, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, and Rachel Maddow, we will have a stream of ex-CIA agents and officers and experts going on air and detailing how this sort of information gathering works in grand and great detail. If an agent runs across a juicy thing that is notable, I am sure the first thing that is done is to look for a way to corroborate that. I am not sure pissing off the intelligence community like this is a wise idea on part of the GOP.

I am looking forward to the patented Rachel Maddow 15 minute fully detailed time line of all of this when she lays out the particulars in excruciating detail all together for us.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whis...lligence-committee_n_5d90c187e4b0019647aa1371

...
The U.S. intelligence official who filed the whistleblower complaint about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine has agreed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, according to committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Schiff told ABC’s “This Week” that he expects the whistleblower to appear before his committee “very soon.” The date of the hearing has not yet been set and is dependent on how quickly acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire can complete the security clearance process for the whistleblower’s attorneys, he said.
...
“As Director Maguire promised during the hearing, that whistleblower will be allowed to come in and come in without a minder from the Justice Department or from the White House to tell the whistleblower what they can and cannot say,” Schiff said. “We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.”
...

I am sure a lot of this will be cleared up in these hearings to come.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Um, no. That would be psychotic.

I have lived a life that has been unpleasant time and again. Calling the flooding casualty 'fake'would have done nothing to get water back out of the people tank.

You sound like an outlier societally then.

If that were true, a lot more people would be hit by cars....

More than how many?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whis...lligence-committee_n_5d90c187e4b0019647aa1371

...
The U.S. intelligence official who filed the whistleblower complaint about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine has agreed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, according to committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Schiff told ABC’s “This Week” that he expects the whistleblower to appear before his committee “very soon.” The date of the hearing has not yet been set and is dependent on how quickly acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire can complete the security clearance process for the whistleblower’s attorneys, he said.
...
“As Director Maguire promised during the hearing, that whistleblower will be allowed to come in and come in without a minder from the Justice Department or from the White House to tell the whistleblower what they can and cannot say,” Schiff said. “We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.”
...

I am sure a lot of this will be cleared up in these hearings to come.

Really?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whis...lligence-committee_n_5d90c187e4b0019647aa1371

...
The U.S. intelligence official who filed the whistleblower complaint about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine has agreed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, according to committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Schiff told ABC’s “This Week” that he expects the whistleblower to appear before his committee “very soon.” The date of the hearing has not yet been set and is dependent on how quickly acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire can complete the security clearance process for the whistleblower’s attorneys, he said.
...
“As Director Maguire promised during the hearing, that whistleblower will be allowed to come in and come in without a minder from the Justice Department or from the White House to tell the whistleblower what they can and cannot say,” Schiff said. “We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.”
...

I am sure a lot of this will be cleared up in these hearings to come.

This appears to be the new derail and obfuscate tactic, but it's just another whattabout.

It does not matter how the information came about if the information is accurate. They're desperately obfuscating because the pooch is screwed. There is no legal or ethical merit to this tactic. They're trying to paint the person as a spy when the information was divulged through appropriate and legal channels. They really, really, really are desperate.