Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

April 19, 2026, 06:50:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
  • Total Members: 142
  • Latest: Hal9000
Stats
  • Total Posts: 177886
  • Total Topics: 1488
  • Online Today: 1129
  • Online Ever: 4316
  • (October 16, 2025, 04:40:42 PM)
Users Online
Users: 3
Guests: 77
Total: 80

WTF happened to the WTF happened to the WTF happened with Trump today thread?

  • 9244 Replies
  • 843760 Views

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

ThePAMan

  • *****
  • 31394
  • +604/-2429
  • Because "PussyMan" and "PenisMan" were trademarked
    • View Profile
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/04/19/trump-states-laws-immigration-business/

In red states, anti-immigrant bills are failing as businesses push back
Most of the roughly 200 bills targeting immigrants around the country this year have stalled or died, with help from business and Christian groups.

Ray and Tempo carrying the water of business and the Christians?
Mark Carman: "The Whitlock!...Caleb Williams failed Wayne Whitlock." Been told I need to take my dick out my mouth so maybe I "wont [sic] sound like such a fucking faggot all the time[.]"

Tempo: "PAMan is a pot stirrer and agent provocateur"

*

ThePAMan

  • *****
  • 31394
  • +604/-2429
  • Because "PussyMan" and "PenisMan" were trademarked
    • View Profile
There's plenty more in the transcripts that were withheld for years.

They aren't showing up in my algorithm.
Mark Carman: "The Whitlock!...Caleb Williams failed Wayne Whitlock." Been told I need to take my dick out my mouth so maybe I "wont [sic] sound like such a fucking faggot all the time[.]"

Tempo: "PAMan is a pot stirrer and agent provocateur"

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12570
  • +178/-2590
    • View Profile
They aren't showing up in my algorithm.
Maybe one of the many on your legal staff can look for them for you. They hopefully know how and where to look.  ;D

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12570
  • +178/-2590
    • View Profile
Does a whistleblower need to have first-hand information to come forward with a complaint?

"In general, whistleblower laws do not require a whistleblower to present first-hand information; authorities are interested in hearing from anyone who has a reasonable belief of wrongdoing. In fact, second-hand reports may be more credible, according to a study in the Harvard Business Review, as they are more likely to identify critical issues that implicate other employees and tend to have less emotion and bias associated."


Debunking Whistleblower Myths
https://www.whistleblowers.org/debunking-whistleblower-myths/
This debunking article is from 2020, after the May 24, 2018 form was used and subsequently changed by Atkinson.
The article is useless as it pertains to the Aug 2019 whistleblower complaint.
I did get a kick out of the link for the book that they would like you to buy.

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12570
  • +178/-2590
    • View Profile
Based on the 2019 complaint, the primary whistleblower regarding President Trump’s call with Ukraine's leader did not have firsthand knowledge of the conversation, relying instead on information from multiple government officials. However, the Intelligence Community Inspector General deemed the complaint "credible" and "urgent".

*Initial Complaint: The initial whistleblower, a CIA officer detailed to the White House, indicated in their formal complaint that they were not a direct witness to the call, according to the PBS report on the complaint.

*Corroboration: While the initial report was based on second-hand information, its core allegations were later corroborated by a White House-released memorandum of the call and testimony from officials who were present.

*Second Whistleblower: Shortly after the initial complaint, a second whistleblower came forward, who was a member of the intelligence community with firsthand knowledge of some of the allegations.

*Legality of Second-Hand Reports: The National Whistleblower Center notes that, generally, whistleblowers are not required to have first-hand information.

In September 2019, the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) revised its "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form to remove a requirement that whistleblowers have first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing.

Key Aspects of the Form Revision:

*Previous Requirement: Prior to the update, the form (approved in May 2018) included a section titled "First-Hand Information Required," stating that the ICIG could not transmit information via the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) based on an employee's second-hand knowledge.

*The Change: The revised form, noted as updated in August 2019, removed this requirement, instead allowing for second-hand information by asking if the complainant had "direct and personal knowledge" or "heard about it from others".

*Timing: The revision occurred shortly before the submission of the complaint that triggered the 2019 impeachment of President Donald Trump, which was largely based on second-hand information.

ICIG and Legal Response:

*ICIG Statement: The ICIG stated that the change was made in response to media inquiries and that "certain language in those forms... could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess firsthand information".

*Legal Interpretation: The ICIG stated that the law does not require first-hand information for a complaint to be considered credible, and therefore the ICIG cannot add that condition.

*Controversy: Critics, including members of Congress, argued that removing the first-hand knowledge requirement diluted the credibility standards for whistleblowers.

While some reports initially stated the form was changed to bypass the first-hand rule, the ICIG maintained that the whistleblower in the Trump case actually submitted their complaint on the older version of the form, though the guidance and form materials were updated around the same time.
The 1st paragraph: the instructions for the form clearly indicate that firsthand information is required for a "credible" and "urgent" complaint. The complainant should have been notified and the IC IG should not have acted on the complaint.

The Initial complaint: correct.

Corroboration: what are the "core allegations" ? Are they even relevant ? This paragraph is worthless as is.

Second whistleblower: the transcripts mention 1 whistleblower existing, not 2. This may refer to the 2nd witness who read a transcript or memorandum and shared with Atkinson that no election, either 2016 or 2020, was mentioned.

Legality of Second-Hand Reports: a 2020 book pushing article irrelevant with respect to the May 24, 2018 form that was used.

In Sept 2019 paragraph. The Atkinson updated version is dated August 2019. There is no specific date in August listed. Probably just an oversight.  ;D

Previous Requirement: correct.

The Change: irrelevant.

Timing: the revision is not dated as to a day in August that preceded the submission and digital signature date. Saying that the revision occured before the complaint submission has no support. Nonetheless, the form used was the 2018 form.

IC IG statement: media had access to the only form that was available, the May 2018 form, and began asking questions. The Atkinson change to the whistleblower complaint form allegedly occured sometime in August. It's not known when but the 2018 form was used and signed.

Legal Interpretation: the Inspector General of the Intelligence Committee sat in front of members of Congress and told them that the law written by members of Congress was not legal so he decided to ignore it. Uh, ok.
Maybe Atkinson can answer how he viewed a dozen or more whistleblower complaints that had previously come before him in his federal referral.

Controversy: Critics, including members of Congress, argued that the law written by members of Congress should be debated in Congress before an IC IG can just ignore it.

The last paragraph: even though the whistleblower used the old form the form was "updated around the same time." smh

Disclaimer: I used no AI in this.


*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12570
  • +178/-2590
    • View Profile
Since there have been so many requests since the information was publicly available on April 13, here you go......

The Investigative materials link is the whistleblower complaint material.
Transcripts 1 and 2 are from 2 separate appearances before HPSCI. All of the other HPSCI transcripts of interviews were released in the fall of 2019.
For the tl;dr crowd, the 2 transcripts are in the neighborhood of 350 pages

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2026/4153-dni-tulsi-gabbard-exposes-conspiracy-used-by-congress-to-impeach-president-trump
« Last Edit: Today at 10:38:42 AM by Somewhere in Mn »

*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9196
  • +616/-2091
    • View Profile
[
Disclaimer: I used no AI in this.

You probably should have.
“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12570
  • +178/-2590
    • View Profile
My question for AI ......
Explain the statements and critiques of the 2019 whistleblower complaint

The 8 relevant 😂 web pages from AI.
No wonder it's called artificial intelligence.

Relevant Web Pages

nytimes.com

nytimes.com

npr.org

npr.org

businessinsider.com

businessinsider.com

bloomberg.com

bloomberg.com

cnn.com

cnn.com

en.wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

nytimes.com

nytimes.com

theguardian.com



*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9196
  • +616/-2091
    • View Profile


Legality of Second-Hand Reports: a 2020 book pushing article irrelevant with respect to the May 24, 2018 form that was used.

Legal Interpretation: the Inspector General of the Intelligence Committee sat in front of members of Congress and told them that the law written by members of Congress was not legal so he decided to ignore it. Uh, ok.
Maybe Atkinson can answer how he viewed a dozen or more whistleblower complaints that had previously come before him in his federal referral.

Controversy: Critics, including members of Congress, argued that the law written by members of Congress should be debated in Congress before an IC IG can just ignore it.

Contrary to Trump's claims, the law does not require a whistleblower to present first-hand information, it only requires a reasonable belief of a violation, said David Colapinto, co-founder and general counsel for the National
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whistleblower-protections-explained

In general, whistleblower laws do not require a whistleblower to present first-hand information; authorities are interested in hearing from anyone who has a reasonable belief of wrongdoing. In fact, second-hand reports may be more credible, according to a study in the Harvard Business Review, as they are more likely to identify critical issues that implicate other employees and tend to have less emotion and bias associated.
https://www.whistleblowers.org/debunking-whistleblower-myths/

The WPA protects a disclosure of information that a covered employee reasonably believes evidences behavior of "a violation of any law, rule, or regulation" or "gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48318#:~:text=The%20WPA%20protects%20a%20disclosure,working%20conditions%2C%20among%20other%20actions.
« Last Edit: Today at 12:57:46 PM by illiniray »
“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”

*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9196
  • +616/-2091
    • View Profile

For the tl;dr crowd, the 2 transcripts are in the neighborhood of 350 pages

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2026/4153-dni-tulsi-gabbard-exposes-conspiracy-used-by-congress-to-impeach-president-trump

Here is a tidy, non- tedious summary

Based on records from April 2026, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard released declassified documents alleging a coordinated effort within the Intelligence Community (IC) to manufacture a conspiracy used to impeach President Donald Trump in 2019.

Gabbard, who assumed office in February 2025, has sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department related to these findings, which target the actions of former Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Michael Atkinson and the initial whistleblower.

Key details of the release and allegations include:

*"Manufactured" Conspiracy: Gabbard stated that "deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative" to impeach Trump.

*Whistleblower Procedural Failures: The documents allege that then-IC IG Michael Atkinson did not follow established policy and procedures in his handling of the whistleblower complaint regarding President Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

*Lack of Firsthand Knowledge: Gabbard’s office claimed the investigation by Atkinson relied on "flimsy work," "biased evidence," and lacked firsthand accounts of the call,, according to the New York Post. Critics have noted the firsthand knowledge requirement is from a since revised form, not from the law as written by Congress.

*Withheld Transcripts: The release included previously secret transcripts of closed-door testimony from Atkinson to the House Intelligence Committee in 2019, which were released after a vote led by House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford on March 24, 2026.

*Whistleblower Bias: Documents indicate the whistleblower may have been biased against Republicans and worked closely with Joe Biden in the past.

*Allegations of "Weaponization": Gabbard's office claimed that Atkinson "weaponized" the whistleblower process by ignoring DOJ guidance to ensure the complaint was sent to Congress and leaked.

*Criminal Referral: The DNI office has sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department for both the anonymous whistleblower and former Inspector General Atkinson.

*Criticism of the Move: Critics and some Democratic lawmakers have described the criminal referrals as a "retaliatory act" and a "twisted revenge plot" intended to punish whistleblowers and chill future oversight, according to reports.


The Department of Justice is weighing whether to launch a full criminal investigation based on the referrals, while some critics, as reported by CNN, argue that the move could have a chilling effect on future whistleblowers.


“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12570
  • +178/-2590
    • View Profile
Contrary to Trump's claims, the law does not require a whistleblower to present first-hand information, it only requires a reasonable belief of a violation, said David Colapinto, co-founder and general counsel for the National
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whistleblower-protections-explained

In general, whistleblower laws do not require a whistleblower to present first-hand information; authorities are interested in hearing from anyone who has a reasonable belief of wrongdoing. In fact, second-hand reports may be more credible, according to a study in the Harvard Business Review, as they are more likely to identify critical issues that implicate other employees and tend to have less emotion and bias associated.
https://www.whistleblowers.org/debunking-whistleblower-myths/

The WPA protects a disclosure of information that a covered employee reasonably believes evidences behavior of "a violation of any law, rule, or regulation" or "gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48318#:~:text=The%20WPA%20protects%20a%20disclosure,working%20conditions%2C%20among%20other%20actions.

The PBS article is written after Atkinson decided to change the May 24, 2018 whistleblower form that was used, and signed, in the complaint.
What would the whistleblower advocate have said on August 13, 2019 ?

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12570
  • +178/-2590
    • View Profile
Here is a tidy, non- tedious summary

Based on records from April 2026, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard released declassified documents alleging a coordinated effort within the Intelligence Community (IC) to manufacture a conspiracy used to impeach President Donald Trump in 2019.

Gabbard, who assumed office in February 2025, has sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department related to these findings, which target the actions of former Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Michael Atkinson and the initial whistleblower.

Key details of the release and allegations include:

*"Manufactured" Conspiracy: Gabbard stated that "deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative" to impeach Trump.

*Whistleblower Procedural Failures: The documents allege that then-IC IG Michael Atkinson did not follow established policy and procedures in his handling of the whistleblower complaint regarding President Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

*Lack of Firsthand Knowledge: Gabbard’s office claimed the investigation by Atkinson relied on "flimsy work," "biased evidence," and lacked firsthand accounts of the call,, according to the New York Post. Critics have noted the firsthand knowledge requirement is from a since revised form, not from the law as written by Congress.

*Withheld Transcripts: The release included previously secret transcripts of closed-door testimony from Atkinson to the House Intelligence Committee in 2019, which were released after a vote led by House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford on March 24, 2026.

*Whistleblower Bias: Documents indicate the whistleblower may have been biased against Republicans and worked closely with Joe Biden in the past.

*Allegations of "Weaponization": Gabbard's office claimed that Atkinson "weaponized" the whistleblower process by ignoring DOJ guidance to ensure the complaint was sent to Congress and leaked.

*Criminal Referral: The DNI office has sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department for both the anonymous whistleblower and former Inspector General Atkinson.

*Criticism of the Move: Critics and some Democratic lawmakers have described the criminal referrals as a "retaliatory act" and a "twisted revenge plot" intended to punish whistleblowers and chill future oversight, according to reports.


The Department of Justice is weighing whether to launch a full criminal investigation based on the referrals, while some critics, as reported by CNN, argue that the move could have a chilling effect on future whistleblowers.



With all of its failings and concealment the whistleblower complaint was used to impeach a sitting President.

Critics and some Democrats want to refer to it as retaliation. Cool. Throw a party, hold some press conferences but it's not retaliation.

If it has a chilling effect on future whistleblowers who aren't truthful in their submissions, that's the idea. It should.

*

Reacher

  • *****
  • 39379
  • +1047/-1048
  • You should see my passer rating
    • View Profile
Wait, now Tempo is noticing that the Saudis own Trump? It just must have showed up in Tempo's algorithm

JFC
Wanting America to be better is not America-hating, it’s patriotism.

*

Reacher

  • *****
  • 39379
  • +1047/-1048
  • You should see my passer rating
    • View Profile
Wanting America to be better is not America-hating, it’s patriotism.

*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9196
  • +616/-2091
    • View Profile
With all of its failings and concealment the whistleblower complaint was used to impeach a sitting President.

Critics and some Democrats want to refer to it as retaliation. Cool. Throw a party, hold some press conferences but it's not retaliation.

If it has a chilling effect on future whistleblowers who aren't truthful in their submissions, that's the idea. It should.

Accusing people of being deep state operatives launching a conspiracy exposing Trump for abusing his power is not retaliation?

Not truthful? Trump actually did, or attempted to do what he was accused of. His defense was he failed. Now he wants to put the Prosecution and witnesses on trial for differences of opinion over paperwork and procedures?
« Last Edit: Today at 02:59:35 PM by illiniray »
“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”