Writers at The Federalist have been all over this Ukraine situation (hoax), and Margot Cleveland’s thread exposing several significant details is a tremendous example of the work they’ve been doing. It’s tough when you’re going up against the traditional media that is deliberately spinning and spinning to push the Democrats’ narrative.
Sorry, not sorry, that’s exactly what it looks like at this point.
Especially after reading Margot’s thread:
THREAD: My latest @FDRLST exposes several significant details in the Ukraine Purse-Strings Hoax–so important it merits additional highlighting here. https://t.co/oWkJVmmltC So, read the piece first, and then follow along. 1/
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2019
‘Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine’ doesn’t quite roll off the tongue so easily.
2/ The key here is to understanding that the Intelligence Community Whistle Protection Act "ICWPA" authorizes sharing classified info w/ intelligence communities only in limited circumstances.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2019
‘Limited circumstances.’
3/ AND that the first step is for the Inspector General to "accept" a complaint under the ICWPA. Simple illustration: If CIA agent filed a sexual harassment claim with IG under ICWPA the IG would reject filing. IG wouldn't assess credibiity & pass on to DNI.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2019
4/ In this case, IG should NOT have accepted the filing for 2 independent reasons. First, because the complaint ON ITS FACE did NOT involve an "urgent concern". AND the "whistleblower" knew it! HE selectively quoted the statute to eliminate the language that he couldn't meet!
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2019
Recommended
But ORANGE MAN BAD.
We should form some sort of game here at Twitchy where we have to find a way to work that phrase into every story we write … heh.
5/ And second, the "whistleblower" didn't have first hand information. Here it is key to re-read @seanmdav piece from Friday. https://t.co/5lD6PetRge That was a huge find on Friday, but after digging into the law more, I realized it was YUGE!
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2019
The whistleblower isn’t even the person who heard the information firsthand.
And they conveniently changed the complaint form to make gossip admissable.
You can’t make this crap up.
6/ The prior form indicates the IG wouldn't EVEN ACCEPT a filing unless it was based on first-hand knowledge. Without "accepting" the complaint as a ICWPA filing, the IG office doesn't even see it; doesn't review for credibility; doesn't pass to DNA AND
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2019
7/ in short, there is no "whistleblower" and no right to disclose to House. This raises several questions: Which form did whistleblower use was one many have focused on, and it seems likely there was a form b/c DNI mentioned complaint charging Trump w/ campaign finance crimes.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2019
In short, this thing STINKS to high heaven.
8/ BUT that is not in the complaint that was disclosed–that claimed President misused his powers. However, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH FORM, IF ANY, THE "WHISTLEBLOWER" used! What matter is this.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2019
9/ Did the IG's office previously ONLY accept complaints based on first hand information BUT changed its policy around time of charge against Trump? If so that is YUGE. pic.twitter.com/neAbsLexV9
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2019
That would seem super-duper suspicious, eh?
10/10 It implicates the IG's office in this latest take-down attempt. DNI MUST determine when the policy was change. Who instigated the change? We need to investigate the investigators of the investigators!! This is what TDS does–it destroys a country to destroy a man! END
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2019
TDS is a serious mental illness, folks.
Not even joking at this point.
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member