Well, here's a surprise (as if)

Because he knows there will be no consequences.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Horowitz may be the next to go

Trump fired Atkinson out of vengefulness, and he's not afraid to say it out loud

Of course, unlike Trump, Atkinson did nothing to be sued over.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

While you're distracted

President Donald Trump has fired the inspector general for the intelligence community who handled the whistleblower complaint that triggered his impeachment.

Trump informed the Senate intelligence committee on Friday of his decision to fire Michael Atkinson, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press.

Trump said in the letter that it is "vital" that he has confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general, and "that is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general".

[...]

Atkinson was the first to inform Congress about an anonymous whistleblower complaint last year that described Trump's pressure on Ukraine to investigate Democrat Joe Biden and his son. That complaint prompted a House investigation that ultimately resulted in Trump's impeachment.

In letters to legislators in August and September, Atkinson said he believed the complaint was "urgent" and "credible".

But the acting Director of National Intelligence at the time, Joseph Maguire, said he did not believe it met the definition of "urgent," and tried to withhold the complaint from Congress.

[...]

Trump said in the letter that he would nominate an individual "who has my full confidence" at a later date.

  alJazeera

Any guesses? Maybe he'll leave the position empty like he has with so many others.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Of course, unlike Trump, Atkinson did nothing to be sued over.

UPDATE:

Will he or won't he?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Stalin is alive and sitting in the Oval Office

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson is the latest Trump-appointed government official to come under fire from the president. And the reasons President Trump is upset with him are simultaneously extremely weak and highly revealing.

On Sunday, Trump posted a tweet hyping a new effort led by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, to call into question Atkinson’s handling of the whistleblower complaint that first sounded the alarm about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and that eventually led to him being impeached.

“ICIG Michael Atkinson facing serious questions,” Trump wrote, along with a quote from Nunes suggesting that Atkinson is somehow part of an anti-Trump conspiracy with Democrats. “The ICIG never wanted proof!”

[...]

As I’ve previously explained, [the Trump-Zelensky] call summary corroborated the whistleblower complaint both in its broad outlines and with regard to specific details. It illustrated why Atkinson likely felt he had little choice but to determine the complaint was credible.

Throughout the ensuing impeachment process, however, Trump has tried to turn reality on its head by insisting that his move to release the call summary somehow refuted the whistleblower complaint and exonerated him.

  Vox

Read the transcript! Black is white.

Trump promised on the campaign trail to only “hire the best people,” but Atkinson is now the latest official he’s appointed to be on the receiving end of one of his salty tweets (or worse).

Just last month, Trump tweeted a hint that he was considering moving on from FBI Director Christopher Wray because Wray did a TV interview about the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation that didn’t indulge Trump’s absurd conspiracy theories about the bureau.

[...]

The common thread in all these cases is that Trump thinks the officials he appoints should do his bidding, and under no circumstances do or say anything that undermines his position.

Along those lines, the New York Times reported in November that Trump was considering firing Atkinson because Atkinson had “been disloyal” by not doing more to suppress the whistleblower complaint.

Government as protection racket.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

News without surprises

President Trump has discussed dismissing the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, because Mr. Atkinson reported a whistle-blower’s complaint about Mr. Trump’s interactions with Ukraine to Congress after concluding it was credible, according to four people familiar with the discussions.

  NYT

Of course he has.

He has said he believes Mr. Atkinson, whom he appointed in 2017, has been disloyal, one of the people said.

He still thinks he's a king.

Two people familiar with what took place said they thought that Mr. Trump was just venting, and insisted that Mr. Atkinson’s dismissal was never under serious consideration.

Bullshit. He's only refraining from doing it because of the optics and the impeachment. He'll eventually find a way to do it.

The president publicly criticized James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Jeff Sessions, the former attorney general, before he dismissed them for perceived disloyalty.

Precisely. He has precedents.

Trump’s decision in May 2017 to fire Mr. Comey, who was leading an investigation into ties between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia, set off a firestorm that led to the appointment of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

[...]

Inspectors general are supposed to be insulated from politics so they can follow the facts and provide oversight of the executive branch. While presidents have the authority to remove them, they are supposed to take that action only in cases of misconduct or failure to fulfill duties.

To Trump, disloyalty IS misconduct.

In these efforts, Mr. Trump has tried to present himself as an advocate for whistle-blowers, falsely claiming that he had been behind legislation to protect them.

“To think I signed the Whistleblower Protection Act!” Mr. Trump tweeted on Monday, misstating what he had signed.

Misstating or not knowing?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Pushing back against the Trump cabal

Excerpts:

The law required that the Complainant be “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.” 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). The ICIG confirmed the Complainant was such an employee, detailee, or contractor.

The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respect to an “urgent concern,” which is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant alleged information with respect to such an alleged urgent concern.

At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the following language:

In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. [...] If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

 [...] 

The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute.  In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law.

 The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”

As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.  Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations.

 [...] 

In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible.  From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower’s filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress’s intent, and the whistleblower’s intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.

Full statement

Impeach.

UPDATE:

Washington Post reporting the whistleblower complaint is indeed about Ukraine

A whistleblower complaint about President Trump made by an intelligence official centers on Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the matter, which has set off a struggle between Congress and the executive branch.

Two and a half weeks before the complaint was filed, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, [...] who was elected in a landslide in May.

[...]

That call is already under investigation by House Democrats who are examining whether Trump and his attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani sought to manipulate the Ukrainian government into helping Trump’s reelection campaign. Lawmakers have demanded a full transcript and a list of participants on the call.

  WaPo

If there's a reliable transcript, it will be Ukrainian.

“As the 2020 election draws closer, President Trump and his personal attorney appear to have increased pressure on the Ukrainian government and its justice system in service of President Trump’s reelection campaign, and the White House and the State Department may be abetting this scheme,” the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees wrote [in letters to the White House and State Department], citing media reports that Trump had threatened to withhold $250 million in aid to help Ukraine in its ongoing struggle against Russian-backed separatists.

[...]

The Democrats’ investigation was launched earlier this month, before revelations that an intelligence official had lodged a complaint with the inspector general.

Before revelations to the public? Perhaps the IG tipped off the Dems?

On Thursday, the inspector general testified behind closed doors to members of the House Intelligence Committee about the whistleblower’s complaint.

Over the course of three hours, Michael Atkinson repeatedly declined to discuss with members the content of the complaint, saying he was not authorized to do so.

This administration just keeps refusing to testify to Congress, which, as I understand it, is a Constitutional matter, and why Congress just keeps letting them go without consequences is beyond me.

He and the members spent much of their time discussing the process Atkinson followed, the statute governing his investigation of the complaint and the nature of an “urgent concern” that he believed it represented, according to a person familiar with the briefing, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity.

[...]

Atkinson made clear that he disagreed with a lawyer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, who had contradicted the inspector general and found that the whistleblower complaint did not meet the statutory definition of an urgent concern because it involved a matter not under the DNI’s jurisdiction.

[...]

In a Sept. 17 letter to intelligence committee leaders, Atkinson wrote that he and Maguire “are at an impasse” over how the whistleblower could contact the congressional committees. Ordinarily, a matter of urgent concern that the inspector general deems credible is supposed to be forwarded to the intelligence oversight panels in the House and Senate.

[...]

Atkinson wrote that he had requested permission from Maguire to inform the congressional intelligence committees about the general subject matter of the complaint, but was denied.

[...]

Maguire, Atkinson wrote, had consulted with the Justice Department, which determined that the law didn’t require disclosing the complaint to the committee because it didn’t involve a member of the intelligence community or “an intelligence activity under the DNI’s supervision.”

Barr's DOJ sure is creative.

Atkinson told lawmakers that he disagreed with that analysis [...] and also that it was urgent “in the common understanding of the word,” the person said.

Atkinson told the committee that the complaint did not stem from just one conversation, according to two people familiar with his testimony.

Following the meeting, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the committee, warned of legal action if intelligence officials did not share the whistleblower complaint.

I bet they're real scared.

Schiff described acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire’s refusal to share the complaint with Congress as “unprecedented” and said he understood the Justice Department was involved in that decision.

[...]

Someone, Schiff said, “is trying to manipulate the system to keep information about an urgent matter from the Congress … There certainly are a lot of indications that it was someone at a higher pay grade than the director of national intelligence.”

Let's see....who's at a higher pay grade than the director of national intelligence?

Maguire is scheduled to testify before the Intelligence Committee in a public session next Thursday.

I think we know how that will turn out.

It's way past time to impeach Trump, et al.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:



UPDATE:

Like Giuliani, but not quite as directly, Trump confirms...



"Somebody", if you're listening.