Reply
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
285
Views

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

285 Views
Message 101 of 188

I don’t agree. First let me say I didn’t vote in the last election. I think I’m more libertarian than anything. I’m registered as an undecided or independent. So basically I’m Switzerland. The Democrats have been yelling “Impeach” since December of 2016. They yell “impeach” over everything. People have become nose blind to it. The same thing with calling everyone a racist. It loses it’s power when it it used wrong and too often. 

I have watched the committee hearings and from my perception they are not looking for the truth. Their decision is already made. Personally I have lost faith in the system to do the right thing. DO NOT claim that is because of Trump. I would say if that is why I think that is the reason. I don’t need YOU to explain to ME how I see things. I got disgusted with Kamala’s double talk all by myself. As with the rest of them putting words in people’s mouths. 

How can anyone take Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seriously? All I see is an immature little girl playing at our expense. Then you have the two muslim women that clearly hate America. 

So no I don’t believe Jim thinks Trump is a criminal. I believe Jim thinks enough is enough. Stop attacking our President unless you have something substantial. Unless you have a blue dress with **bleep** on it knock it off.

Biden is not a political opponent yet. He needs to get the nomination first. As it stands now he is a former vice president that allegedly sold the influence of his office using his son. President Trump has the authority to pursue that in accordance with the treaty Bill Clinton signed.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
285
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
307
Views

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

307 Views
Message 102 of 188

“WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!”

 

 

Isn't there anyone around Trump with the guts to tell him he's wrong? He makes Forrest Gump look like a genius.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
307
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
302
Views

Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

302 Views
Message 103 of 188

"The Trump haters keep claiming Trump is a criminal. Their argument holds no weight if nothing has been proven and/or there has been no conviction."

 

Only criminals surround themselves with convicted felons.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
302
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
300
Views

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

300 Views
Message 104 of 188

@DanielM163007 wrote:

No. That isn’t that.

 

Interesting. I thought that was exactly that......


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
300
Views
Gold Conversationalist
2
Kudos
289
Views

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

289 Views
Message 105 of 188

Let’s get to the heart of this. There are people that hate Trump and people that think he is doing a good job. 

Those people that hate Trump need to be able to hold a conversation. Calling people names and ignoring facts will not help anything. 

Those people that support Trump would help themselves to realize they are banging their head against the wall when trying to defend Trump to the haters.

The Trump haters keep claiming Trump is a criminal. Their argument holds no weight if nothing has been proven and/or there has been no conviction. They will point to accusations but those are not convictions and they have not been proven. With all of the accusations from the democrats it becomes a “don’t cry wolf” situation. When there really is a wolf no one will believe them. 

The Trump supporters believe The Clintons are criminals. Even though Bill Clinton was accused of rape, sexual assault, and receiving sexual favors in the Oval office yet still received overwhelming support they believe that the hypocrisy is ridiculously blatant. They believe The Clintons, Obama and Biden had a pay for play scheme. The jury is still out on them. 

The correct way to perceive all of this is to have an open mind. See both sides. You can’t point fingers if you live in a glass house. There are no teams. If you are not getting paid You are not on the team. They don’t know who you are. 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
289
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
292
Views

Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

292 Views
Message 106 of 188

The facts are clear. The Trump appointed IG changed the form because it did NOT comply with federal law. That minor form change had nothing to do with Jim's bogus Deep State Theory.

 

More importantly, who cares about a form? The only thing which matters is finding the truth. You see, Jim doesn't want the truth because he knows Trump is a criminal. His one and only concern is protecting Donald Trump. And if that means attacking everyone involved with the complaint against DT,, he will do it. 

 

For the rest of us, let the committee do it's investigation and find the truth.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
292
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
286
Views

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

286 Views
Message 107 of 188

Here is the IC IG report. You will see it admits that the clause about first hand knowledge was included with the forms filled out by the whistleblower. Does it matter? No. Just pointing out that it isn’t a lie. https://saraacarter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ICIG-Statement-on-Processing-of-Whistleblower-Com...

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
286
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
272
Views

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

272 Views
Message 108 of 188

Left Tries To Wave Away IG Changes Allowing Whistleblowers To Weaponize Hearsay

 

The documents clearly show the process was changed, and the previously explicit requirements for first-hand information were suddenly eliminated.

 

BY:  Matt Beebe

 

After Federalist reporting unearthed the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s (ICIG’s) material changes to its whistleblower complaint intake procedures, a battle has ensued over whether the changes matter.

 

This discovery continues to captivate elected representatives, Capitol insiders, and political talking heads across the nation. President Trump tweeted Mondaymorning, asking emphatically “WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!”

 

 

 

The president’s tweet appears to have prompted the impeachment cheerleaders at The Daily Beast to claim “Trump [had] joined an army of conservative commentators in pushing a false story” and smearing his own ICIG, Michael Atkinson. Other outlets and commentators piled on. But is the story false?

There Is No Dispute that the Form Changed

 

The detractors are right about one thing: the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) statute doesn’t actually prohibit a purported whistleblower from initiating a complaint based on hearsay. But the clear language of the previous IC IG guidance never stated that it did. As Sean Davis reported in The FederalistFriday, quoting from the original documents:

 

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

 

‘The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,’ the previous form stated under the bolded heading ‘FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.’ ‘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 documents clearly show the process was changed, and the previously explicit regulatory requirements for first-hand information were suddenly eliminated. It is undisputed that the instructions for the form have changed.

 

Under the law, the ICIG is the office that sets the internal policy and instructions for reporting and investigating whistleblower complaints. While the ICIG would likely have been obligated to make a preliminary inquiry regardless of the provenance of the information, it is entirely reasonable from an administrative process standpoint that an organization with the ICIG’s responsibilities would consider it desirable to discourage hearsay allegations in favor of first-hand complaints.

 

It isn’t too hard to imagine a scenario where the ICIG reporting system could be overwhelmed if hearsay allegations were encouraged. Former CIA director John Brennan’s tweet over the weekend exhorting federal officials to report the president “or someone doing his bidding” is just one example of how the system could potentially be overwhelmed with spurious allegations.

 

 

In fact, the ICIG is well aware of the need to balance the workload unique to the organization he leads. In preparation for his Senate confirmation hearing on January 17, 2018, Atkinson answered a prepared question about the ability to investigate whistleblower complaints in a timely and thorough manner as follows: “the IC IG has a unique statutory requirement to make a credibility determination on a matter of ‘urgent concern’ reported by whistleblowers within fourteen (14) days of receiving such reports. Given the relatively short statutory time frame, the IC IG should have an appropriate intake and evaluation process in place to permit the IC IG to fulfill its statutory obligation.”

 

Late yesterday the IC IG finally provided a public explanation in a news release, where they acknowledged the changes to the form instructions were made in part “in response to recent press inquiries regarding the [Ukraine] whistleblower complaint.”  Clearly the IC IG understood the potential for a public outcry if he certified a complaint as “credible” where the whistleblower stated “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described” while the instructions for his own intake form still listed a warning that “[t]he IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.”

The IG Shall Determine Whether the Complaint is Credible

 

As defined in the ICWPA, the ICIG’s duties include an obligation “to initiate and conduct independent investigations” (U.S.C. §3033(e)). Further, he “shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible. Upon making such a determination, the Inspector General shall transmit to the Director a notice of that determination, together with the complaint or information” (U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(B)).

 

Ironically, the Daily Beast article inadvertently destroys its own claim that this is a “false story.” In their zeal to dismiss the importance of the altered requirement for first-hand knowledge, the article explains that first-hand evidence is the threshold to determine what is “credible” under the statute: “Though the text is confusingly drafted—which may be why the entire preamble was canned—a careful reading shows it’s not erecting a new hurdle for filing a whistleblower complaint, but rather describing the type of evidence the IC IG has to gather to judge the complaint ‘credible’ at the end of its 14-day investigation.”

 

Setting aside the laughable fig leaf of an excuse offered for the reason the revision was made (the “confusing” text is actually quite explicit in the previous form’s instructions), it appears many debating this issue are conflating the standard for justifying and acting on a complaint with the standard for assessing its credibility. Once a complaint is filed, what is the standard for determining if it meets the threshold of a “credible” complaint?

 

During his Senate confirmation hearing on January 17, 2018, Atkinson stated, “The IC IG has the responsibility to determine whether the complaint or information appears credible,” and promised that “I will work to ensure that ICIG personnel conduct investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews in accordance with Quality Standards promulgated by CIGIE to keep those activities free from personal, external, and organizational impairments.”

 

CIGIE is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and among the guidance they have periodically promulgated is the November 15, 2011 document “QUALITY STANDARDS FOR INVESTIGATIONS.” Among its guidelines: “Objectivity—Evidence must be gathered and reported in an unbiased and independent manner in an effort to determine the validity of an allegation or to resolve an issue. This includes inculpatory and exculpatory information.”

 

Did the ICIG conduct an objective investigation? If so, did his investigation uncover any first-hand sources to substantiate the allegations, or did he just deem the complaint credible? Did his report of investigation uncover the widely reported dramatic inconsistencies in the complaint, or was he unaware of how wildly speculative most of the document was?

 

With so many obvious factual inconsistencies in the whistleblower report, how did the ICIG find the complaint credible? And why did he feel compelled to certify it as an “Urgent Concern” under the statute over the clearly articulated determination of the Director of National Intelligence’s Office of General Counsel?

 

In his confirmation hearing in 2018, Atkinson addressed contemporaneous press criticism that the ICIG’s office was “barely functioning” by stating, “Simply put, the IC IG needs to get its own house in order. The sooner, the better.” More than 21 months later, it appears to still be true.

 

It’s an open question if the ICIG intentionally fumbled when he sidestepped the DNI’s Office of Legal Counsel determination, if he was coerced to pass along an allegation that should have been dismissed for lack of merit, or if he simply decided to punt because he didn’t want to get left holding the ball on something that was assuredly going to leak.

 

But moving forward, the most important question may very well center on whether House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff will expand his invitation to Atkinson to testify about these questions publicly, or will the Democrats’ impeachment narrative be better served by letting those questions go unanswered, or answered within the closed-door classified session scheduled for Friday?

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
272
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
280
Views

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

280 Views
Message 109 of 188

That is going to happen anyway. Unfortunately the democrat house is not looking for truth. If they were they would talk straight when they ask questions. Instead they ask questions with a hint of truth then add a bunch of lies trying to trick people into admitting to stuff that did NOT happen. I was a democrat until I saw them being sleazy. It really turned me off. I’m more libertarian I think. So they will impeach Trump in the house and they will acquit him in the senate. Trump will stay in office and most likely be re elected. If other democrats are turned off from the crappy stuff the democrats are doing, or believe China needs to be dealt with, or believes the Southern Border needs a wall then I think those people will vote for Trump to finish what he started

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
280
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
288
Views

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

288 Views
Message 110 of 188

Isn’t that exactly what the deep state does? The deep state is all of those government employees and bureaucrats that are not elected running the country behind the scenes instead of our elected representatives. You know the ones spying on Trump and leaking everything he does. Too bad they didn’t do that to the other Presidents. Imagine what we could've known about. Yet those other presidents didn’t mess with the bureaucrats so they were safe. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
288
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

This AARP gamer plays to get back her art and identity after a health scare. Read Regan C.’s story, available now.


gamer Regan C.

Top Authors