Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

Reply
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
361
Views

: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

361 Views
Message 141 of 188

Nobody does it better than right wingers. And what might that be? They take something with an element of truth and twist and manipulate that information to come out with something which is completely different than reality. Let's examine the ICG Memo the Federalist article referenced. 

 

Here's a direct quote from that press release, with more to follow in my next few posts. Please read the last line of the paragraph below. The IG followed the law.

 

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence  Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower  Complaints


(September 30, 2019) The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
(ICIG) processes complaints or information with respect to alleged urgent concerns in accordance
with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) and the ICIG’s
authorizing statute. With respect to the whistleblower complaint received by the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG processed and reviewed the complaint in accordance with the law.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
361
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
357
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

357 Views
Message 142 of 188

@jimc91 wrote:

Dear Jim.   
And who cares what the Whistleblower says or didn't say? Not I, I have not even read it.

No need to. 
I only have read the Memo that Trump has provided the Congress , In that memo he has requested the favor of the Presiden tof Ukraine to investigate Biden, and that is the illegal acton that this Presiden is guilty of.

The Constitution is very clear on this. and it is clearly stated that no President will request from any foreighn national. to investigate an American citizen that is  a political opponent.|

The rest, is really non existant, inmaterial and irrelevant
Whenever you are ready to discuss the TRump memo and the constitutionality of that memo and what he said in that memo,  I will be more than ready to answer any questions that you many have on this subjerct

 

 

 

 


 

no name
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
357
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
363
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

363 Views
Message 143 of 188

Looks like even Jim agrees that Trump did the deed and is now trying to find a way to get out from under it. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
363
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
372
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

372 Views
Message 144 of 188

Intel Community Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions

 

In a press release issued late Monday, the intelligence community inspector general admitted it changed its policy and its whistleblower form after an anti-Trump complainant alleged that Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president.

 

BY:  Sean Davis

 

On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday. While many in the media falsely claimed the ICIG’s stunning admission debunked The Federalist’s report, the admission from the ICIG completely affirmed the reporting on the secretive change to whistleblower rules following the filing of an anti-Trump complaint in August.

 

The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. The Federalist reported last week that it was not known which form, if any, the complainant used, as the complaint that was declassified and released to the public last week was written as a letter to the two chairmen of the congressional intelligence committees.

 
Under the law governing whistleblower complaints for members of the intelligence community, the inspector general has near-total authority to determine whether a complaint is credible or not. The law is silent on what type of evidence is required and leaves that decision entirely to the discretion of the inspector general. As a result, the internal policies set by the ICIG’s office are the regulatory rules governing the examination of whistleblower complaints. Because of this wide discretion granted under the law, the ICIG’s internal changes to its own policies and guidance regarding firsthand evidence — which the ICIG admitted to in its press release on Monday — directly impacted its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint filed in August.

 

In its press release, the ICIG also explicitly admitted it changed its policies because of the anti-Trump complaint, raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint:

 

In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

The ICIG’s claim that it would have been incorrect to perceive a requirement for firsthand information is bizarre considering the previous version of the form clearly stated in unambiguous language that firsthand evidence was required in order for “urgent concern” whistleblower complaints to be deemed credible. It said, in bold, underlined, all-caps text, “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED”:

 

Because the complaint did not allege wrongdoing against a member of the intelligence community (the president of the United States is an elected constitutional officer, not an employee of a statutory agency), did not allege wrongdoing with regard to an intelligence activity (a phone call between two elected world leaders is basic diplomacy, not the execution of a statutorily required intelligence activity), and relied primarily on hearsay rather than firsthand evidence, both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the anti-Trump complaint was not an “urgent concern” under the law and was therefore not required to be transmitted to the relevant congressional committees. In spite of those determinations, the ICIG on its own and after revising its internal guidance and policies regarding firsthand evidence decided the complaint did qualify as an “urgent concern” and forwarded the anti-Trump complaint to Congress.

The ICIG did not inform the DNI of the existence of the anti-Trump complaint until Aug. 26 and did not inform Congress of the complaint until Sept. 9. On Sept. 13, the DNI informed Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, that the complaint did not meet the statutory definition of an “urgent concern” and would therefore not be shared with Congress. The complaint was formally declassified by the president for release to the public on Sept. 25.

 

This timeline raises significant questions about the rationale for the rule changes by the ICIG, as it would be improbable, except in the case of illegal classified leaks, for the press to have inquired about the anti-Trump complaint in August, when the revisions to the forms and policies were claimed to have been formally made, according to markings on the new whistleblower forms which claim they were revised in August of 2019. While the previous forms requiring firsthand evidence show they were approved on May 24, 2018, the new forms do not disclose the specific date of the revision. If the ICIG did not inform the congressional committees of the particular whistleblower complaint until Sept. 9 and did not transmit the letter until Sept. 13, how could any members of the media have inquired back in August about the specific anti-Trump complaint or its relation to the previous requirement for firsthand information in whistleblower complaints?

 

The ICIG in its press release also failed to disclose when precisely its whistleblower forms and rules were changed, despite top lawmakers on oversight committees in both chambers specifically requesting that information. The specific date of the changes to internal evidentiary requirements is essential to determining whether the ICIG changed its own policies and procedures to justify forwarding to Congress a complaint that under the previous standard may not have been deemed credible.

 
The president’s release of the transcript of his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed that numerous allegations within the complaint filed with the ICIG were false. For example, the complainant falsely alleged that Trump demanded Zelensky return multiple servers from CrowdStrike, an IT contractor for the Democratic National Committee, that were physically located in Ukraine. Trump made no such demand. The complainant also alleged that Trump urged Zelensky to either hire or retain a particular government prosecutor in Ukraine. That exchange never happened. Additionally, the complainant alleged that a specific State Department official had listened in on the phone call between the two leaders. The State Department stated last week that particular official did not listen in on the phone call.

 

The anti-Trump complaint that was released last week, which congressional Democrats are using as the basis for impeachment proceedings against the president, is riddled not with evidence directly viewed by the complainant, but repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “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.”

 

In fact, the ICIG admitted in its Aug. 26 letter to the DNI that its office never even reviewed the transcript of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky prior to determining whether the complainants hearsay allegations about the phone call were credible.

 

“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” Michael Atkinson, the ICIG, wrote.

 

“I decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible,’” he stated.

 

Although the ICIG stated in its Monday press release that the complainant claimed on his whistleblower form to be in possession of firsthand evidence of criminality by Trump, the complaint released to the public contains no such firsthand evidence. A congressional official told The Federalist on Monday that the House Intelligence Committee has not received the underlying whistleblower complaint form submitted by the anti-Trump complainant.

 

Michael Atkinson, the ICIG, is slated to testify under oath before the House Intelligence Committee later this week.

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
372
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
406
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

406 Views
Message 145 of 188

@jimc91 wrote:

https://www.westernjournal.com/intel-community-uploaded-altered-whistleblower-form-2-days-complaint-...

 

 

 


You posted it before so why are you reposting nothing has changed. Mob boss Trump broke the law and got caught period. Another poster explained to you why the form was changed and the IG of the National Intel backed that up when he told us the person who reported all of this was correct and it all happened and Trump should be held accountable. This was a Trump appointee. Are you telling us that the Mob Boss people are turning on him.

 

Now we know Mob Boss (Dictator Trump) had his mob soldiers (AG, Sec. of State, Mob lawyer) all working on his shake down efforts around the world. He tried to hide his crimes by putting them in a secret server which he has now been caught. His whole crew lied when they were first talked to about what they did, but they have been exposed and they could take the fall while the Mob boss tries to stay free. Mob Boss Trump caught by true Americans who reported he and his underling's. Sad his enablers understand none of this. They think the 2 Russian Mob guys who helped his lawyer cleared the Mob boss. Experts correct again.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
406
Views
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
380
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

380 Views
Message 146 of 188

CriticalThinking:   Yes, the form changed, but the fact that first hand knowledge is NOT required did not change. Please read the law! That's how conpsiracy theories are created. They take something which is true, the form did change, and then weave a fabric of LIES around the truth. 

 

 

This 100%! They take a grain of truth and then twist it. These lies and conspiracy theories are like a hit of crack for the cult.............it feeds their outrage and convinces them it's true that the world is out to get their hero.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
380
Views
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
380
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

380 Views
Message 147 of 188

jimc91:   It's not a theory... The form changed in August.  Why do you suppose the form changed to no longer require first hand knowledge?  

 

Words are tricky things, so pay attention. The IG states that the whistleblower had both first and secondhand knowledge.

But please do keep insisting that there was something shady going on here, it would be entirely out of character to accept the facts over a nice little conspiracy theory.

 

 

 

"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. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the 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."

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%2...

Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
380
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
393
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

393 Views
Message 148 of 188

Still trying to understand if you are really saying that Trump actually did try to get another country to interfere in our electoral process but should not be impeached because you think you found where they changed a rule. 

 

Is that seriously your argument for the snowflake?

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
393
Views
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
387
Views

Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

387 Views
Message 149 of 188

There's no relationship between Trump World and the facts or the law. They believe every right wing conspiracy theory and there are no facts which one can use to change their mind. If only they would read the law. Here are 2 key points in the Whistlebower Law, which did NOT change in August. 

 

  1. An employee need not prove that the matter disclosed actually was unlawful. The employee must prove that someone in his or her position REASONABLY BELIEVES the allegation, or allegations, are true.  That's the only test the employee must meet. First hand knowledge is not, and never was, a requirement.
  2. It is the job of the IG to determine if the complaint is valid.

In this case, the Trump appointed IG said the complaint was serious and substantial.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
387
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
388
Views

Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

388 Views
Message 150 of 188
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
388
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Claim your 1,000 Welcome bonus points!

Get Started with AARP Rewards.

Top Authors