So this whole whistleblower thing is raging on, y’all. There’s all the new news about what Adam Schiff knew and when he knew it, PLUS the intelligence community IG admitted on Monday that the whistleblower complaint form/process WAS changed IN RESPONSE to the complaint filed.
Handy, huh?
The ICIG also revealed that the whistleblower used the OLD form, which explicitly required firsthand evidence in order to be considered part of a credible complaint.
And in the press release from the ICIG, this is completely negated, inexplicably:
In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.
Say whaaa? Why would it be incorrect to suggest that firsthand knowledge was necessary when in fact that’s literally EXACTLY what it says on the form?
From the Federalist:
Seems pretty clear to me.
The ICIG is scheduled to testify in front of the House Intelligence Committee later this week.
But let’s get back to the whole reason this giant hullabaloo exists in the first place. The whistleblower, and now basically every Democrat who hates Trump, is mad that Trump had the SHEER AUDACITY to ask the Ukranian president to look into corruption relating to 2016 and the Biden family. Rudy Giuliani said if Trump HADN’T asked those questions, he’d have been breaking the law.
Our own clever and competent reader Stickyfrog sent in this submission about that:
Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 4 it states “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” Obviously in order to achieve this the Executive Branch must investigate to determine if laws are being enforced and obeyed. To not do this, especially when there is an appearance that the law has been broken, would be a breach of the President’s oath of office.
However, does this give the President carte blanche to investigate anyone for anything? Yes, it does if it is done factually, does not violate an individual’s right to privacy, and due process is followed. He can also ask anyone, even leaders of foreign countries, to assist in an investigation even if that requires putting pressure on them. Making leveraged deals with other countries to benefit the United StateS is as old as the Constitution itself and not prohibited by law if no treaties are entered unilaterally.
Democrats and the media are making the claim that the only reason Trump is investigating Biden is to dig up dirt to interfere with an election. It may very well be politically motivated but there is something that they are forgetting. it is also his duty to investigate possible law breakers. Unless they can prove that Trump asked Ukraine to make up stuff (which there is no indication of this) then he cannot be impeached for doing his job.
When Hillary lost, Democrats screamed that she should not be investigated because she didn’t win and was no longer a factor. Now they are saying that Biden cannot be investigated because that would be interfering in an election. I think what they really mean is that the President cannot investigate anyone who is a Democrat. Period.
Thoughts?
