Beet L. Jooz

In the months leading up to a CIA whistleblower's hearsay complaint about President Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the US intelligence community quietly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers must provide first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings, according to The Federalist's Sean Davis. 

Then, on September 24 - days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public - a new version of the whistleblower complaint form revised in August, 2019 - the Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form - was uploaded and used by the CIA employee to file the complaint.

And while the public just learned about this a week ago, the whistleblower letter to House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairs Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Richard Burr (R-NC) was dated August 12, the same month the form was updated. 

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed. -The Federalist

A previous version of the document provided by the ICIG and DNI until recently declared that whistleblower complaints must only contain first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing - and made clear that hearsay, gossip or rumor would be rejected. 

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," reads the prior version of the form, which contains the bolded heading: "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED," and "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing."

"If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA," the form concludes. 

Old form: 

New form:

15/ bottom line: it appears almost certain that, subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced a brand new Urgent Disclosure Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report allegations with no personal knowledge https://t.co/l8foAAj2sC pic.twitter.com/WXcNdJn84u

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) September 27, 2019

And as The Federalist breaks down - "The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant." 

For example: 

“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 Federalist

And if any doubt remains, the CIA employee told Schiff Burr (R-NC) in their August 12 letter; "I was not a direct witness to most of the events," which is repeated in the actual complaint as: "I was not a witness to most of the events described..."

Meanwhile, the complaint contains several false claims noted by Davis:

While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.

The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.

Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

“I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call,” the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported that Brechbuhl was not on the phone call. -The Federalist

Following the complaint, the Justice Department (DOJ) and Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) deemed the submission to be statutorily deficient and therefore free from reporting requirements to Congress. Under mounting pressure, however, the White House declassified and released the complaint to Congress on Wednesday evening, hours after they released transcript of the underlying Trump-Zelensky phone call in question which refuted grandiose claims made in mainstream publications such as Trump pressuring Zelensky "about eight times." 

Read the rest of the report here. 

Enlarge / This AtGames prototype cabinet is at the heart of a legal battle over the rights to Ms. Pac-Man. (credit: Bandai Namco court filing)

The complicated rights situation behind Ms. Pac-Man is at the heart of a legal battle between Bandai Namco—which owns the Ms. Pac-Man trademark and copyright—and retro hardware maker AtGames—which has now purchased the separately held royalty rights to the game.

The strange situation dates back to 1982, when a group of MIT students created an unauthorized "enhancement kit" named "Crazy Otto" for Bandai Namco's arcade hit Pac-Man. The MIT group, which organized under the name General Computer Corporation, then reached out to US Pac-Man distributor Bally Midway to develop that modification into the officially licensed Ms. Pac-Man.

As part of the Crazy Otto licensing deal, GCC received the right to a perpetual royalty payment whenever a Ms. Pac-Man game was sold. Bally Midway retained the copyright and trademark rights to the game and its characters, though, which Bandai Namco eventually reacquired in the intervening years.

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Like so many other things that were once affordable, owning pets is increasingly pricey.

One of the few joys still available to the average household is a pet. At least this is what I thought until I read 5 money-saving tips people hate, which included the lifetime costs of caring for a pet.

It turns out Poochie and Kittie are as unaffordable as college, housing and healthcare (and pretty much everything else). Over the course of 15 years, small-dog Poochie will set the owner back an eye-watering $17,560 to $93,520, while big-dog Fido costs $22,025 to $82,929 over 12 years.

Kittie is a relative bargain at $16,800 over 15 years.

Some estimates of responsible pet ownership are considerably lower, but non-pet owners may be surprised by 1) how many options for the care of pets are now available and 2) how many medical interventions and treatments are now available, at prices that aren't much different from human healthcare.

Five-figure bills for pet surgeries and other care are not uncommon.

Unfortunately, pets aren't able to tell us they don't want any extraordinary measures taken to extend their lives, and so households may agree to procedures they really can't afford.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

The SPCA lists the cost of pets as follows:

-- Over 15 years, total costs for a small dog could run from $17,560 to upward of $93,520.

-- Over a 12-year lifetime, the costs of a large dog range from $22,025 to upward of $82,929 for folks using dog walkers.

-- All told, cost of cats will be at least $780 a year and $16,800 over its possible 15-year existence.

-- American Kennel Club: "The average lifetime cost of raising a dog is $23,410."

-- US News: "RaisingSpot.com, which provides tips on raising a dog, suggests a dog that lives 12 years might cost you anywhere between $4,620 and $32,990."

-- Pet Place: "An indoor cat's total estimated lifetime cost is $8,620 to $11,275." Note: Outdoor cats live much shorter lives and thus cost less.

There's even a pet cost calculator if you want to find the cost of your pet.

To summarize, a dog is going to cost roughly $20,000 while cats will be closer to $10,000.

Now, if you own multiple animals at the same time, not to mention several over the course of your adult lifetime, we're talking a massive amount of money.

But... "My dog/cat doesn't cost anywhere near that much. I pay $30 a month to feed him and that's it."

Uh, no it's not. Here's a list of expenses you just left out:

-- Vaccines

-- Flea/tick control

-- Heartworm prevention

-- Ear and dental care

-- Grooming

-- Food (Premium?)

-- Toys

--- House (fenced backyard? cleaning? etc.)

-- Bowls, collar, leash/harness

-- Cost of pet (if from breeder)

-- Boarding

-- Training

-- Walking (yes, some people pay walkers)

And then there's the big one: medical costs. This is where things get really pricey, especially toward the end of a pet's life.

As I said earlier, how you spend your money is your choice. You simply need to realize that two dogs throughout your 50-year adulthood will run you somewhere around $150k. That's $3,000 a year.

$3,000 a year saved and invested at 8% for 50 years equals $1.7 million.

Even if you spend 'only' half that amount, it's still costing you a fortune.

Now that you understand how much your pets cost you, you can make an informed decision about where to spend and where to save.

Like so many other things that were once affordable, owning pets is increasingly pricey.

*  *  *

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. New benefit for subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics.

Democrat voters surveyed by Reuters fear that impeaching President Trump over the Biden-Ukraine scandal will backfire, giving him a boost into the 2020 US election.  In short, Congressional Democrats looking to impeach have major credibility issues after the Mueller report failed to show that Trump 'colluded' with Russia, and a transcript of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky failed to show Trump strongarming him into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his coke addict son.

Among the public, interviews with more than 60 voters across four of the most important counties in the 2020 election showed Republicans largely confident the impeachment process will backfire and Trump will win re-election. Democrats, on the other hand, are worried they may be right.

Marc Devlin, a 48-year-old consultant from Northampton County, Pennsylvania, said he expects the inquiry to “incense” supporters of the president. “This is my fear, that it will actually add some flame to his fire with his base,” he said. “I just fear ‘party over country.’”

Meanwhile:

A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken on Monday and Tuesday showed 37% of respondents favored impeaching the president versus 45% who were opposed. That 37% figure was down from 41% three weeks earlier and down from 44% in May, after the release of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. -Reuters

"After this he has a much better chance of winning another election, as scary as that sounds," said 39-year-old Richard Sibilla of Pinellas County, Florida, who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. "It’s not even worth following because it’s all going to help him." 

Reuters is monitoring voters in four key parts of the country that could determine the outcome of next year's November election; Pinellas County, Florida; Maricopa County, Arizona; Northampton County, Pennsylvania; and Racine County, Wisconsin - areas which will be among the most targeted by presidential candidates next year.

Republicans, as expected, are firmly in Trump's camp. 

"I don’t think he did anything wrong," said 78-year-old barber shop owner Joe D'Ambrosio of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, who applauds Trump's efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. 

"I have not had one Republican crack or say they’re turning or going the other way. They’re laughing it off. I think it’s going to help him," said Lee Snover, chair of the Northampton County Republican Committee, who said she felt the impeachment inquiry was simply the latest Democrat attempt to take out Trump. 

That sentiment was shared at a meeting of College Republicans United at Arizona State University on Wednesday.

“They have this idea that everyone is siding with them, that Trump is an impeachable president, when really it’s only a minority,” Rose Mulet, 19, said of the Democratic leadership in Congress. “It’s not a reflection of the general public.” -Reuters

That said, Reuters was able to find at least one Republican who Trump managed to piss off enough to not only not vote for him again - but to endorse impeachment. 

"It should have been done a long time ago," said 52-year-old Chris Harman of Maricopa County, who said he voted for Trump in 2016. "I’m not voting for Trump. I tried it, it was a grand experiment, but I’m not going to try it again." 

Enlarge / Spider-Man (Tom Holland) fwips around Manhattan. (credit: Sony Pictures)

Spider-Man will remain in the MCU after all, after Sony and Marvel reconciled their differences and came to a new agreement, Variety reports. The studios jointly announced a third Spider-Man film in the Homecoming series this morning.

This is excellent news. Tom Holland's incarnation of Peter Parker was clearly being groomed to replace Tony Stark's Iron Man in this summer's blockbuster, Spiderman: Far From Home. And fans reacted with anger and dismay when the news broke in August that the two companies had failed to agree on terms for future profit-sharing, effectively booting the webslinger from future Marvel films.

“I am thrilled that Spidey’s journey in the MCU will continue, and I and all of us at Marvel Studios are very excited that we get to keep working on it,” said Marvel president Kevin Feige in a statement. “Spider-Man is a powerful icon and hero whose story crosses all ages and audiences around the globe. He also happens to be the only hero with the superpower to cross cinematic universes, so as Sony continues to develop their own Spidey-verse, you never know what surprises the future might hold.”