Changes

:*John Solomon: Democrats Attempted To Collude With Ukraine In 2016.<ref>https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/25/john_solomon_democrats_attempted_to_collude_with_ukraine_in_2016.html</ref>

:*John Solomon: Democrats Attempted To Collude With Ukraine In 2016.<ref>https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/25/john_solomon_democrats_attempted_to_collude_with_ukraine_in_2016.html</ref>

:*Ukraine’s top prosecutor opens an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about [[Paul Manafort]] in an effort to influence the election of Hillary Clinton.<ref>https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-emerges</ref>

:*Ukraine’s top prosecutor opens an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about [[Paul Manafort]] in an effort to influence the election of Hillary Clinton.<ref>https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-emerges</ref>

:*A [[whistleblower]] complaint addressed to Sen. Richard Burr and Rep. [[Adam Schiff]] was marked "urgent concern" alleging collusion between President Trump and President Zelensky.<ref>https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf</ref> The [[Intelligence community]] Inspector General (ISIG) and Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined the complaint was not of "urgent concern" and [[DNI]] James McGuire acted properly.The Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel strongly rebuked ICIG [[Michael Atkinson]]’s original granting whisteleblower status based on [[hearsay]]. interpretation of his responsibility with the complaint.  In the OLC opinion, they point out that Atkinson’s internal justification for accepting the whistleblower complaint was poor legal judgement.

:*A [[whistleblower]] complaint addressed to Sen. Richard Burr and Rep. [[Adam Schiff]] was marked "urgent concern" alleging collusion between President Trump and President Zelensky.<ref>https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf</ref> The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined the complaint was not of "urgent concern" and [[DNI]] James McGuire acted properly.The Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel strongly rebuked ICIG [[Michael Atkinson]]’s original granting whisteleblower status based on [[hearsay]]. interpretation of his responsibility with the complaint.  In the OLC opinion, they point out that Atkinson’s internal justification for accepting the whistleblower complaint was poor legal judgement.

:*"The complainant describes a hearsay report that the President, who is not a member of the intelligence community, abused his authority or acted unlawfully in connection with foreign diplomacy.....it does not follow that the alleged misconduct by the President concerns “the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority” of the DNI because the allegations do not arise in connection with any such intelligence activity at all."<ref>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6429710-OLC-Opinion-Trump-Ukraine-Call.html</ref>   

:*"The complainant describes a hearsay report that the President, who is not a member of the intelligence community, abused his authority or acted unlawfully in connection with foreign diplomacy.....it does not follow that the alleged misconduct by the President concerns “the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority” of the DNI because the allegations do not arise in connection with any such intelligence activity at all."<ref>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6429710-OLC-Opinion-Trump-Ukraine-Call.html</ref>   

:*The complaint is riddled with hearsay evidence: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”

:*The complaint is riddled with hearsay evidence: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”