per NYTimes.

Quote:The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

Hasn't Shiff denied knowing anything about it before the official complaint was filed?

Sounds like the whistleblower was wise enough in the ways of Washington to understand how to keep the claim from being covered up by the justice department.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/po...lower.html

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Why did Adam Schiff lie about communication with the whistleblower

Pretty sure going to Congress like that is a no no

See 2:30 mark below

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/02/bre...complaint/

Real collusion

(10-02-2019 03:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Sounds like the whistleblower was wise enough in the ways of Washington to understand how to keep the claim from being covered up by the justice department.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/po...lower.html

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Quote:While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.

By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.

So Schiff at least knew the general overview of the complaint, but is not allowed to make it public.

Quote:Mr. Schiff, after a private letter and phone call to Mr. Maguire, publicly released a letter seeking the complaint and suggested it could involve Mr. Trumpor others in his administration. Mr. Schiff followed up by subpoenaing Mr. Maguire to testify before the intelligence committee.

Mr. Schiff’s intense push took Mr. Maguire and his aides by surprise, current and former intelligence officials said. In other cases of lawmakers seeking classified material that the intelligence agencies were reluctant to share, including whistle-blower complaints, both sides usually tried to resolve the matter by holding quiet discussions.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations.

Then schiff MAKES PUBLIC much of what he knew about the complaint.

(10-02-2019 03:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Sounds like the whistleblower was wise enough in the ways of Washington to understand how to keep the claim from being covered up by the justice department.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/po...lower.html

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Sounds like someone knew they had a non-issue, but took it to someone who would blow it out of proportion..

(10-02-2019 03:47 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 03:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Sounds like the whistleblower was wise enough in the ways of Washington to understand how to keep the claim from being covered up by the justice department.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/po...lower.html

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Sounds like someone knew they had a non-issue, but took it to someone who would blow it out of proportion..

Or maybe they were responding to requests from Schiff and the Dems for juicy gossip?

(10-02-2019 03:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 03:47 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 03:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Sounds like the whistleblower was wise enough in the ways of Washington to understand how to keep the claim from being covered up by the justice department.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/po...lower.html

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Sounds like someone knew they had a non-issue, but took it to someone who would blow it out of proportion..

Or maybe they were responding to requests from Schiff and the Dems for juicy gossip?

Possibly..

But again.. They knew it wouldn't pass the sniff test, so instead of following protocal they gave it to the person who would blow it out of proportion the most.. Remember his memo.. Collusion.. Then he gets on national tv and out right lies about the transcript.. Dude's gots to go.. But people here like Mensa and AFT will cheer him on and say he's doing God's work.

(10-02-2019 03:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Why did Adam Schiff lie about communication with the whistleblower

Pretty sure going to Congress like that is a no no

See 2:30 mark below

Schiff said in the interview he had no direct contact and the NY Times article states communication with the Intelligence Committee was through a House aide.

(10-02-2019 03:53 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 03:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Why did Adam Schiff lie about communication with the whistleblower

Pretty sure going to Congress like that is a no no

See 2:30 mark below

Schiff said in the interview he had no direct contact and the NY Times article states communication with the Intelligence Committee was through a House aide.

Shaddy kingpins never do the dirty work directly

Plausible deniability.

Dude even looks like a weasel.

Swampity, swamp, swamp, swamp

Guess what? Nothing on Google News about this except Trump's claim that Schiff wrote the complaint.

First is the Dallas PD office. Then Bernie, then a bunch of anti-Trump stuff.

Schiff just hit the fan.

Trump is pulling crap out his arse at this point yet I can’t deny its fun watching him squirm and free style at the podium as he clearly makes stuff up as he goes along.

The whistleblower’s attorney has already denied Trump’s ghostwriter claim.

(10-02-2019 04:44 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Trump is pulling crap out his arse at this point yet I can’t deny its fun watching him squirm and free style at the podium as he clearly makes stuff up as he goes along.

The whistleblower’s attorney has already denied Trump’s ghostwriter claim.

Ghostwriting is a broad term.

Did team Schiff write the complaint, probably not

Did they play a role at what went into the complaint, probably

As usual Trump uses hyperbole and media flips out

With this breaking information, I do think it's important -- nay, NECESSARY to take a look at the servers and hard drives of all of Schiff's offices and technology to see what he knew, when he knew it and how much involvement he may/may not have had in creating it.

If dirt is found there, he has to go. Additionally, if dirt is found there then the next process should be the same with Pelosi.

(10-02-2019 04:51 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  With this breaking information, I do think it's important -- nay, NECESSARY to take a look at the servers and hard drives of all of Schiff's offices and technology to see what he knew, when he knew it and how much involvement he may/may not have had in creating it.

If dirt is found there, he has to go. Additionally, if dirt is found there then the next process should be the same with Pelosi.

Agreed
Laws were broken

Full investigation needs to be done

(10-02-2019 04:51 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  With this breaking information, I do think it's important -- nay, NECESSARY to take a look at the servers and hard drives of all of Schiff's offices and technology to see what he knew, when he knew it and how much involvement he may/may not have had in creating it.

If dirt is found there, he has to go. Additionally, if dirt is found there then the next process should be the same with Pelosi.

one would think the DOJ would have already sicked the hell hounds....

oopsy, it's wash-tubby-tonnage

The complaint was written in a style that is identical to the democrats response to the republican memo. Schiff and his minions wrote that memo. Schiff and his minions wrote the WB report.

This also shows how incompetent the democrats are at running a coup, or anything else. They have unlimited resources and all of the friendlies in the intelligence department they need. Yet they cant even take on a guy that wasnt in politics. Its a no wonder when they're in charge we get bad trade deals, badly run cities, and a badly run country. They are incompetent at everything.

(10-02-2019 04:56 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 04:51 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  With this breaking information, I do think it's important -- nay, NECESSARY to take a look at the servers and hard drives of all of Schiff's offices and technology to see what he knew, when he knew it and how much involvement he may/may not have had in creating it.

If dirt is found there, he has to go. Additionally, if dirt is found there then the next process should be the same with Pelosi.

Agreed
Laws were broken

Full investigation needs to be done

Not if you're mensa or RWT or half the population who reads crap on the NYT and takes it as gospel.