There's no need to discredit the Mueller report, it was a nothingburger in the end. No collusion, and a pussy-out on 'obstruction.' The investigation now is regarding the actions that led to the appointment of the special counsel in the first place, i.e. the generation of the so-called "dossier," the FISA warrants obtained with fabricated evidence, the DNC's reaching out to Ukraine for dirt on Trump, Manafort, et al.
And the 'viable distraction' came out in the NYT yesterday, though it could hardly be said to be Trump's doing. You know that paper isn't ever going to carry water for Trump. But they did expose that Schiff's staff had prior contact and got the info from the whistleblower before the complaint ever got filed. That's huge. Because 1) that means the whistleblower didn't follow the procedures that the WPA requires in order to be protected under that law. To be a bona-fide whistleblower, the complaint needs to go to ICIG first and only. The whistleblower instead went first to the CIA, which said you got nothing here, then he/she went to partisan (Democrat) interests in Congress, i.e. Schiff. So the whistleblower isn't even a whistleblower. Just a LEAKER. 2) Schiff's claim yesterday that his office merely directed the whistleblower to hire counsel and how to file the complaint properly is bullshit, because they took the info and used it. Schiff was tweeting teasers for this in late August. Due to his prior knowledge and contact with the whistleblower, he should have recused himself. Instead he's chairing the Committee LOL. Schiff lied about his contact with the whistleblower, and it looks like Pelosi did too. Whether it was him personally or his staff, Schiff claimed on TV that "We" never had contact, but this is now proven false in the NYT. And Pelosi let slip on 60 Minutes that she had prior knowledge of the complaint and the transcript before either were released. How do these Democrats have these materials up front??? The House Intelligence Committee rules require disclosure of any such info to all members. Schiff didn't share his advance contact with the whistleblower or the accusation info with anyone on the Committee, and flat out denied it until forced to admit. The whole thing stinks.
To my understanding of the timeline:
1. The whistleblower went to CIA internal legal staff to get clarification and raise concerns on what was being discussed with him. He/she only sought to submit a formal whistleblower complaint after hearing that after CIA's legal staff had direct communication w/ DOJ that there was discussion of the transcript being moved to server.
2. Upon collecting information on how to properly submit whistleblower complaint from a member from schiff's staff (not schiff directly) and the advice was given to get a lawyer in addition to the other steps discussed a formal complaint was then filed.
2b. Are you seriously suggesting Schiff to recuse himself when Barr isn't? Do you think Barr should also recuse? I'm trying to see how partisan you are when it comes to perceived conflicts of interest before continuing this discussion.
I don't know I if I was about to blow a whistle that could potentially ruin my livelihood and career in intelligence services I would want to make damn sure that someone would actually follow up and investigate what I would be reporting. I'm trying to empathize to get in a frame of thinking of what this individual would be thinking at the time. It's very clear they were meticulous in their compliant.
Whether they had assistance and to what degree is reported in the link below:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...ence-committee-staff-before-filing-complaint/
Also here is an informative read on Whistleblower law and interpretation in context with this current event:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...histleblower-law-says-about-sharing-complain/
"But national security lawyer Kel McClanahan wrote in a
blog post that the whistleblower "would be on strong constitutional and statutory footing" if he or she brought the complaint directly to Schiff, but noted that doing so still risks consequences, such as the loss of a security clearance."
So at worst, still legal and valid complaint, doesn't change scope or path of impeachment inquiry, but it's possible republicans can retaliate against the whistle-blower by removing security clearance effectively neutering their position in intelligence services? Big win??
In the end, the source of the complaint doesn't matter once it was validated from the transcript that Trump himself released. Is there an actual defense for Trump's actions in the transcript that isn't a what-about Biden/Democrats? I've read Fox news articles ever since this release and have watched multiple interviews of the President's defenders.
The best defense I've seen so far is just saying the President is trying to root out corruption. But there's no evidence I've seen to support him 'investigating corruption' outside of his own areas of interest in reelection. His involvement of personal lawyers in state department matters doesn't help either.
TLDR: Ok after reading the blog post I have a lot more to say. I'm going to say the most troubling part for the whistle-blower receiving any potential retaliation is because he approached a staffer instead of Schiff directly, due to security clearances of "need-to-know". This torpedoes your whole argument. Neither instance invalidates the complaint that was submitted, just whether or not he/she may be subject to a loss of security clearance once this blows over. This also is at the discretion of the DNI to my knowledge. And I doubt he's going to penalize the whistle-blower in efforts to encourage whistle-blowing. I'm basing this on his congressional testimony from last week.
https://www.justsecurity.org/66211/...d-from-congressional-intelligence-committees/
"That being said, there are constitutional arguments to be made for a whistleblower’s right to petition Congress directly outside of the ICWPA process; in fact, the ICWPA originally included a requirement – which did not make it into the final law – that the president must inform Intelligence Community whistleblowers of that fact, and
5 U.S.C. § 7211 specifically states that “[t]he right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.” "
