info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Whistleblower attorney says "60 Minutes" "misinterpreted" key letter
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Oct 2, 2019, 7:50:27 AM10/2/19
to
A lawyer representing the unidentified whistleblower in Congress' impeachment
investigation blasted "60 Minutes" on Sunday, saying the program
"misinterpreted" a letter from his legal team in reporting that it indicated
his client is under federal protection.
Mark Zaid, the attorney, tweeted that the famed news program "completely
misinterpreted contents of our letter," which he linked to from his Twitter
post.
The CBS program tweeted a brief defense of its report, saying: "60 Minutes
stands by its sources and reporting on the whistleblower."
This prompted a more scathing response from Zaid.
"Is @60Minutes now asserting it has a source other than letter our legal team
sent to @ODNIgov? Because if it doesn't, and I know it doesn't, then it is
literally making stuff up. That helps no one, especially the #whistleblower.
The media should always accurately report facts," he tweeted.
The whistleblower allegations represent a major threat to the Trump
presidency. The allegation is that the president pressured Ukraine to
investigate the Bidens, with some Democrats also arguing that he held up
military aid as part of that effort. The whistleblower also claims that the
administration went to great lengths to "bury" the controversial phone call
on July 25 between Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Trump denies any wrongdoing and said he was just making sure that the
country, known to be besieged by corruption, was getting off on the right
foot with its new president.
"60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
safety concerns.
The report showed a PDF file of the Sept. 28 letter from the Compass Rose
Legal Group, to the officer of acting Director of National Intelligence
Joseph Maguire.
The letter said, in part, "The purpose of this letter is to formally notify
you of serious concerns we have regarding our client’s personal safety. We
appreciate your office’s support thus far to activate appropriate resources
to ensure their safety."
The letter did not specify the "support" or "resources" that were offered.
The letter stressed the urgency in protecting the whistleblower's identity
and claimed that there's a $50,000 bounty for information about the client.
The letter was signed by Andrew P. Bakaj, the lead attorney in the case.
"60 Minutes" did not immediately respond to an early morning email from Fox
News.
One social media user highlighted the sentence in his legal group’s letter
that expressed gratitude to Maguire’s office for activating the “appropriate
resources to ensure” the whistleblower’s safety and asked what was
misinterpreted.
An email to Zaid was not immediately returned.
Zaid said talks are still ongoing and we “continue to work w/both parties in
House & Senate & we understand all agree protecting whistleblower’s identity
is paramount.” He said no time or date has been set.
Meanwhile, Fox News is told that the inspector general for the intelligence
community who originally received the whistleblower complaint, Michael
Atkinson, is scheduled to testify in closed session Friday before the House
Intelligence Committee.
--
Watching Democrats come up with schemes to "catch Trump" is like
watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner.
investigation blasted "60 Minutes" on Sunday, saying the program
"misinterpreted" a letter from his legal team in reporting that it indicated
his client is under federal protection.
Mark Zaid, the attorney, tweeted that the famed news program "completely
misinterpreted contents of our letter," which he linked to from his Twitter
post.
The CBS program tweeted a brief defense of its report, saying: "60 Minutes
stands by its sources and reporting on the whistleblower."
This prompted a more scathing response from Zaid.
"Is @60Minutes now asserting it has a source other than letter our legal team
sent to @ODNIgov? Because if it doesn't, and I know it doesn't, then it is
literally making stuff up. That helps no one, especially the #whistleblower.
The media should always accurately report facts," he tweeted.
The whistleblower allegations represent a major threat to the Trump
presidency. The allegation is that the president pressured Ukraine to
investigate the Bidens, with some Democrats also arguing that he held up
military aid as part of that effort. The whistleblower also claims that the
administration went to great lengths to "bury" the controversial phone call
on July 25 between Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Trump denies any wrongdoing and said he was just making sure that the
country, known to be besieged by corruption, was getting off on the right
foot with its new president.
"60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
safety concerns.
The report showed a PDF file of the Sept. 28 letter from the Compass Rose
Legal Group, to the officer of acting Director of National Intelligence
Joseph Maguire.
The letter said, in part, "The purpose of this letter is to formally notify
you of serious concerns we have regarding our client’s personal safety. We
appreciate your office’s support thus far to activate appropriate resources
to ensure their safety."
The letter did not specify the "support" or "resources" that were offered.
The letter stressed the urgency in protecting the whistleblower's identity
and claimed that there's a $50,000 bounty for information about the client.
The letter was signed by Andrew P. Bakaj, the lead attorney in the case.
"60 Minutes" did not immediately respond to an early morning email from Fox
News.
One social media user highlighted the sentence in his legal group’s letter
that expressed gratitude to Maguire’s office for activating the “appropriate
resources to ensure” the whistleblower’s safety and asked what was
misinterpreted.
An email to Zaid was not immediately returned.
Zaid said talks are still ongoing and we “continue to work w/both parties in
House & Senate & we understand all agree protecting whistleblower’s identity
is paramount.” He said no time or date has been set.
Meanwhile, Fox News is told that the inspector general for the intelligence
community who originally received the whistleblower complaint, Michael
Atkinson, is scheduled to testify in closed session Friday before the House
Intelligence Committee.
--
Watching Democrats come up with schemes to "catch Trump" is like
watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner.
FPP
Oct 2, 2019, 8:03:39 AM10/2/19
to
On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> "60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
> the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
> safety concerns.
Which is why his lawyer wouldn't want it known that he was under Federal
> "60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
> the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
> safety concerns.
protection.
BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
--
"You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all
so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe
you." - Donald J. Trump
(To Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes in response to the question of why he
attacks the press so often.)
NoBody
Oct 3, 2019, 8:43:25 AM10/3/19
to
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:03:35 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> "60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
>> the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
>> safety concerns.
>
>Which is why his lawyer wouldn't want it known that he was under Federal
>protection.
>
>BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
How about we have a President that needs to be protected from a House
>On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> "60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
>> the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
>> safety concerns.
>
>Which is why his lawyer wouldn't want it known that he was under Federal
>protection.
>
>BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
that is running crazy and making up accusations?
Ubiquitous
Oct 4, 2019, 1:36:15 PM10/4/19
to
In article <qn23mo$u4c$1...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> "60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
>> the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
>> safety concerns.
>
>Which is why his lawyer wouldn't want it known that he was under Federal
>protection.
>
>BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Circular reasoning noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to
>On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> "60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
>> the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
>> safety concerns.
>
>Which is why his lawyer wouldn't want it known that he was under Federal
>protection.
>
>BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
make.
What part of "Mark Zaid, the [whistleblowr's] attorney, tweeted that the
famed news program "completely misinterpreted contents of our letter," which
he linked to from his Twitter post." do you not understand?
Ubiquitous
Oct 4, 2019, 1:39:28 PM10/4/19
to
NoB...@nowhere.com wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:03:35 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:03:35 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>"60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
>>>the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
>>>safety concerns.
>>>
>>>the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
>>>safety concerns.
>>>
>>Which is why his lawyer wouldn't want it known that he was under Federal
>>protection.
>>
>>BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
>
>How about we have a President that needs to be protected from a House
>that is running crazy and making up accusations?
FPP needs to do something about his reading comprehension problems.
>>protection.
>>
>>BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
>
>How about we have a President that needs to be protected from a House
>that is running crazy and making up accusations?
moviePig
Oct 4, 2019, 2:22:24 PM10/4/19
to
On 10/3/2019 8:43 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <qn23mo$u4c$1...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>>> "60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
>>> the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
>>> safety concerns.
>>
>> Which is why his lawyer wouldn't want it known that he was under Federal
>> protection.
>>
>> BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
>
> Circular reasoning noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to
> make.
>
> What part of "Mark Zaid, the [whistleblowr's] attorney, tweeted that the
> famed news program "completely misinterpreted contents of our letter," which
> he linked to from his Twitter post." do you not understand?
"Circular reasoning"? You mean: 'A' because 'B', and 'B' because 'A'?
> In article <qn23mo$u4c$1...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>>> "60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
>>> the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
>>> safety concerns.
>>
>> Which is why his lawyer wouldn't want it known that he was under Federal
>> protection.
>>
>> BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
>
> Circular reasoning noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to
> make.
>
> What part of "Mark Zaid, the [whistleblowr's] attorney, tweeted that the
> famed news program "completely misinterpreted contents of our letter," which
> he linked to from his Twitter post." do you not understand?
What are the 'A' and 'B' you've identified, please?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
FPP
Oct 4, 2019, 6:47:31 PM10/4/19
to
On 10/3/19 8:43 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <qn23mo$u4c$1...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>>> "60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
>>> the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
>>> safety concerns.
>>
>> Which is why his lawyer wouldn't want it known that he was under Federal
>> protection.
>>
>> BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
>
> Circular reasoning noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to
> make.
>
> What part of "Mark Zaid, the [whistleblowr's] attorney, tweeted that the
> famed news program "completely misinterpreted contents of our letter," which
> he linked to from his Twitter post." do you not understand?
>
Well, there goes that reading comprehension problem of yours whenever
> In article <qn23mo$u4c$1...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 10/1/19 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>>> "60 Minutes" reported Sunday that it received a letter that indicated that
>>> the government whistleblower has been put under federal protection due to
>>> safety concerns.
>>
>> Which is why his lawyer wouldn't want it known that he was under Federal
>> protection.
>>
>> BECAUSE THEY MAN HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM RUNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
>
> Circular reasoning noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to
> make.
>
> What part of "Mark Zaid, the [whistleblowr's] attorney, tweeted that the
> famed news program "completely misinterpreted contents of our letter," which
> he linked to from his Twitter post." do you not understand?
>
you've
lost a debate again!
0 new messages