Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

Reply
Trusted Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
886
Views

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

886 Views
Message 181 of 188

Richva:  Has anyone else noticed that when the regressives want to explain why it looks like their guy is guilty but he is not, they need to have secrets kept between individuals and groups ?

 

 

Yes, I've noticed that. They're going to go nuts when they discover the command bunker in DC (undisclosed location) where Hillary and Obama are directing this plot to get Trump.

Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
886
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
7
Kudos
886
Views

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

886 Views
Message 182 of 188

CriticalThinking:    It's amazing what Trump Cult members will do to protect their Supreme Leader in the White House. This thread also reflects the ignorance of Trump supporters, who will make up any story and/or change the facts to protect their hero. 

 

 

 

Yes, it really is amazing. It's also amazing that this is sooo secret everyone knows about it. *dying laughing*

Most amazing of all is watching the cult discuss every irrelevant detail they can find while totally ignoring what Trump did. Or have I somehow missed the threads they started talking about Trump shaking down a foreign power for dirt on Joe Biden?

Report Inappropriate Content
7
Kudos
886
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
911
Views

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

911 Views
Message 183 of 188

@jimc91 wrote:

Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

 

BY:   Sean Davis

 

Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

 

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 complaint alleges that President Donald Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president. In his complaint, which was dated August 12, 2019, the complainant acknowledged he was “not a direct witness” to the wrongdoing he claims Trump committed.

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 form concluded.

Markings on the previous version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form show that it was formally approved on May 24, 2018. Here is that original Disclosure of Urgent Concern form prior to the August 2019 revision:

 

 

Here is the revised Disclosure of Urgent Concern form following the August 2019 revision:

 

 

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: “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 repeated references to information the so-called whistleblower never witnessed clearly run afoul of the original ICIG requirements for “urgent concern” submissions. The change to the “urgent concern” submission form was first highlighted on Twitter by researcher Stephen McIntyre.

 

The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations.

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the respective chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers.

 

The anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and debunked. 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.

 

In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.

“The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the September 3 OLC opinion noted. “Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand.”

 

“The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of “urgent concern” that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees,” the OLC opinion continued. “We conclude that it does not.”

 

It is not known precisely when the August 2019 revision to the whistleblower complaint form was approved, nor is it known which, if any, version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the complainant completed prior to addressing his complaint to Congress.

 

Reached by phone on Friday afternoon, a Director of National Intelligence official refused to comment on any questions about the secret revision to the whistleblower form, including when it was revised to eliminate the requirement of first-hand knowledge and for what reason.

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Still think the "Deep State" doesn,t exist?  These days we need to question everything...  Remember, "It's a republic, if we can keep it."

 

The dimms seem to be making stuff up for the express purpose of undoing and election and impeaching a duly elected President.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Still at it. More nonsense being sent to the enablers by the leaders. Nothing changed. Trump the mob boss and dictator is still trying to destroy the US just as Hitler did to Germany, and both had help in doing that from their enablers. The father of our space program was a Nazi. All of the enablers will go down in histroy the same way.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
911
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
911
Views

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

911 Views
Message 184 of 188
Trumps cult members are nothing but criminals who are supporting another criminal in my opinion, and that is the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in. They refuse to accept the facts which have come out and up about their Presidents state of affairs.
Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
911
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
6
Kudos
932
Views

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

932 Views
Message 185 of 188

@jimc91 wrote:

 

The dimms seem to be making stuff up for the express purpose of undoing and election and impeaching a duly elected President.

 

The Repubs seem to be clearly undermining democracy for the sole purpose of creating a dictatorship and facilitating a fascist regime.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
932
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
966
Views

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

966 Views
Message 186 of 188

Has anyone else noticed that when the regressives want to explain why it looks like their guy is guilty but he is not, they need to have secrets kept between individuals and groups ?  When the progressives want to explain why they think Trump is guilty, they just point to what he did and said.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
966
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
959
Views

Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

959 Views
Message 187 of 188

It's amazing what Trump Cult members will do to protect their Supreme Leader in the White House. This thread also reflects the ignorance of Trump supporters, who will make up any story and/or change the facts to protect their hero. 

 

First hand Knowledge was never a requirement for someone reporting suspicious activity via the Whistleblower Act. Those who understand the law realize a whistleblower is not a prosecutor. Therefore, they do not have to prove their case in a court of law where hearsay is not admissable in a criminal trial. A whistleblower is someone who reports suspicious activity to the IG. 

 

A Whistleblower is someone who learns there is fraud, abuse, or criminal actiivty going on. They report what they've learned to the IG who then makes an assessment of their complaint. In sum, it's the IG's job to ascertain the validity of the complaint. First hand knowlege is nice, but not a requirement.

Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
959
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
911
Views
187
Replies

Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

911 Views
Message 188 of 188

Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

 

BY:   Sean Davis

 

Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

 

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 complaint alleges that President Donald Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president. In his complaint, which was dated August 12, 2019, the complainant acknowledged he was “not a direct witness” to the wrongdoing he claims Trump committed.

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 form concluded.

Markings on the previous version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form show that it was formally approved on May 24, 2018. Here is that original Disclosure of Urgent Concern form prior to the August 2019 revision:

 

 

Here is the revised Disclosure of Urgent Concern form following the August 2019 revision:

 

 

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: “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 repeated references to information the so-called whistleblower never witnessed clearly run afoul of the original ICIG requirements for “urgent concern” submissions. The change to the “urgent concern” submission form was first highlighted on Twitter by researcher Stephen McIntyre.

 

The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations.

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the respective chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers.

 

The anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and debunked. 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.

 

In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.

“The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the September 3 OLC opinion noted. “Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand.”

 

“The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of “urgent concern” that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees,” the OLC opinion continued. “We conclude that it does not.”

 

It is not known precisely when the August 2019 revision to the whistleblower complaint form was approved, nor is it known which, if any, version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the complainant completed prior to addressing his complaint to Congress.

 

Reached by phone on Friday afternoon, a Director of National Intelligence official refused to comment on any questions about the secret revision to the whistleblower form, including when it was revised to eliminate the requirement of first-hand knowledge and for what reason.

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Still think the "Deep State" doesn,t exist?  These days we need to question everything...  Remember, "It's a republic, if we can keep it."

 

The dimms seem to be making stuff up for the express purpose of undoing and election and impeaching a duly elected President.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
911
Views
187
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Now until February 11, play this classic game online at AARP. Get in the game and play now.


jeopardy for aarp logo

Top Authors