Intel Community Changed Whistleblower firsthand requirements in August

1. 94

   Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

   Interesting how the Intel Community changed the requirements for a whistleblower complaint to no longer need to have firsthand knowledge to make a complaint in August of 2019.  In September 2019, a whistleblower complaint based on second-hand information is filed against President Donald Trump.  Gee, does this make the intel community look bad?  Read the article.
   
   Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge
   
   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. 
   
   https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/in … knowledge/

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Of course, so now you can blow the whistle on someone without firsthand knowledge or proof, evidence or facts.
      
      Hearsay is all that is needed.  Sounds like something Stalin or Mao Zedong would authorize.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      Don Wposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      There is no evidence of a legal requirement for an intelligence community whistleblower to have "firsthand" knowledge of wrongdoing.
      
      1. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) contains no such requirement.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
      
      2. The Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-19) that is based on the ICWPA contains no such requirement either.
      https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ic-legal- … rective-19
      
      3. The Intelligence Community Directive (ICD-120), which provides guidance for implementing PPD-19 and the ICWPA contains no such requirement either.
      https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICD/ICD%20120.pdf
      
      4. The training material used by the DNI to train members of the intelligence community on whistleblower protections, contains no such requirement either. In fact, in the "knowledge check question 3" on page 6, the example identifies someone with indirect knowledge of wrongdoing, and indicates the appropriate action is to report the wrongdoing.
      https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ico … blower.PDF
      
      5. The Federalist article uses a comparison between the 2018 and 2019 disclosure forms, to suggest a whistleblowers could not previously make a complaint without direct knowledge of the evidence (see screenshots below).
      
      2018 Form
      
      
      2019 Form
      
      
      What the article does not make clear is that those screenshots compare two different sections of the forms. Here is a comparison of the same section of the forms.
      
      
      
      Just like the 2019 form, the 2018 form included an option to indicate a complaint is based on indirect information.
      
      So the guidance on the 2018 form is simply wrong and not supported by current law. This is the most likely reason it was replaced. This is further supported by point 6 below.
      
      6. A copy of the intelligence community whistleblower report template from 2017 explicitly references indirect knowledge in the declaration at the beginning of the form:  "I am discloser with direct or indirect evidence in the above-captioned disclosure of a Title 50 alleged urgent concern" (my emphasis). Here is a copy of the form:
      
      
      
      7. The Inspector General did a preliminary investigation of the complaint and determined the whistleblower complaint was "credible". He would not have done so if there was a legal requirement for there to be firsthand knowledge. Unless it is being alleged that the IG is completely incompetent. I see no evidence to suggest that.
      
      8. The whistleblower complaint does not say he/she "was ‘not a direct witness’ to the wrongdoing". It says: "I was not a direct witness to most of the events described" (my emphasis). This indicates the whistleblower has direct knowledge of some of the events described.
      https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded … nclass.pdf
      
      9. Key events in the whistleblower complaint have already been independently verified. The status of the Whistleblower does not change that. For example:
      
      a) Trump admitted he asked Zelensky to investigate a domestic political rival, and the incomplete transcript released confirms that fact;
      https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … 9.2019.pdf
      
      b) The White House confirmed a record of Trump's call with Zelensky was moved to a special server intended to protect codeword-level intelligence, not information that is politically embarrassing.
      https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics … index.html
      
      So in summary, there is no evidence of any requirement for an intelligence community whistleblower to have "firsthand" knowledge of wrongdoing. Therefore any previous version of a disclosure form that indicated such a requirement would have been wrong, which is the most likely reason it was changed. Even if there were such a requirement, it would not change the fact that key events in the whistleblower's complaint have already been proven to be true.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Legalese is difficult for a Trumper to grasp, Don. Try using first grade logic and they may understand some of it.

         replyreport
   3. 60

      Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Isn't that about thesame time Adam Schiff started tweeting things that look suspiciously like the as of then unknown whistleblower complaint.
      
      I can smell and spell a rat.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         We'll see if you can or not, LTL. Let the games begin....

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Give me a word. Any word. I'll spell it.
            
            That game?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Okay! Can you spell the "I" word? 

               replyreport
   4. 83

      Don Wposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      In light of the statement by the Inspector general, does this about sum up this episode?
      
      Right wing media, Trump and supporters: A ha! They recently changed requirements that said whistleblowers must have first-hand evidence. It's an anti Trump conspiracy!
      
      Sensible people: There is no such requirement in law. They most likely noticed the wording on the old forms was wrong so updated it.
      
      Right wing media, Trump and supporters: Lies! It's a conspiracy! They got caught!
      
      Inspector General: There is no such requirement in law. We noticed the old forms were wrong so changed them as part of a business as usual review of our documentation.
      
      Right wing media, Trump and supporter: *fingers in ears* la la la la la conspiracy! La la la la la can't hear you!  La la la la la lies!
      
      Sensible people: *sigh*
      
      Does that about sum it up Mike?

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Would it matter if hearsay evidence was accepted in the past even though the form said it could not be?  Would it matter if such evidence was refused in the past?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            The hearsay propaganda is irrelevant.
            
            The whistleblower said in the memo that he or she had direct evidence. The intel Inspector General confirmed it.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               "The hearsay propaganda is irrelevant."
               
               Meaning you don't want to discuss it OR that it could throw doubt on the veracity of the whole thing.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Meaning you are throwing irrelevant, pro-Trump propaganda into the discussion.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     That's hilarious, and it could just as easily be said you are throwing irrelevant anti-trump propaganda into the discussion.
                     
                     If the American people really agree with your opinions they will vote him out in 2020.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        They won't get a chance to vote him out, Ken. He will be long gone before then. How does "President Pelosi" strike you?

                        replyreport
                     2. 94

                        Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        It's interesting what people don't know about the law.  Hearsay laws are in place in our judicial system.  It means if you are arrested and charged with a crime a person can't tell you what an alleged witness said about the incident.  First hand witness is only admissible. I'm also stunned how many people don't know qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanors. It makes these threads interesting but also very disappointing.

                        replyreport
                  2. 94

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     How did it go from questioning the veracity of third hand information from an informant that lied on the reporting form to pro-trump?  The question is whether politics suddenly decided to ignore the past and create new rules so that it sounded better.  If so it indicates the whole thing is a political game rather than an honest investigation into perceived wrongdoing.

                     replyreport
2. 89

   IslandBitesposted 3 years ago

   So, fake news?
   
   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.
   
   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...
   
   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.The Complainant  followed the law in filing the urgent concern complaint, and the ICIG followed the law in transmitting the information to the Acting Director of National Intelligence on August 26, 2019
   
   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.
   
   ICIG Statement
   
   I think I know where the smell is coming from. LOL

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What you smell is called fascism.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      So if I understand correctly, the unnamed complainant (whistleblower) lied that they had first hand knowledge, when in fact they did not.
      
      So they are basing their complaint on hearsay and the House is drumming up another investigation into anyone who supports Trump based on it.
      
      Does that sum it up?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Wrong again. If you actually read the whistleblower complaint -- please do rather than rely on Fox News cherrypicking -- you'll see it state that he or she does have first-hand information.
         
         Furthermore, the intel Inspector General confirmed it and said Trump is flat out wrong -- again.
         
         https://www.axios.com/watchdog-debunks- … 8e230.html

         replyreport
      2. 92

         crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Ken, for somebody who rightly points out the err in believing mainstream media on every story, you do seem to parrot the Fox company line on a lot of issues.
         
         This campaign to discredit the whistleblower is all coming from Fox News and other right-wing sources.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Geez, excuse me for READING the quoted material (above) and pointing out the whistle blower checked off that they had first hand knowledge.
            Yet the reports I READ say they don't, implying the person falsely or incorrectly filled out the complaint.
            I guess we will never know, I guess it doesn't matter... What matters now is how willing people are to buy the story they are selling, while ignoring the crimes of the Biden's & Clinton's that made Trump ask about it.

            replyreport
      3. 94

         Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Nobody needs to discredit the whistleblower.  The complaint made public by President Donald Trump discredits the whistleblower.  When you make such a major accusation and base most of it on secondhand information, you discredit yourself.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Sure.
            
            ...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.
            
            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.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Yes indeed, Trump never tells a lie or uses second hand info, or does he, Mike?

            replyreport
         3. 94

            Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Here's the problem.  I've read the whistleblower complaint I've read the transcript of the conversation between President Donald Trump and the president of the Ukraine. I will still say there was nothing wrong with the conversation.  I don't CARE what the ICIG says.  See, I can read and think for myself.  People on the left should try this sometime.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Trump's White House lawyers don't agree with you.

               replyreport
3. 94

   Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

   9 Reasons Why Impeachment Is a Fraud
   
   Vanity Fair reported as far back as December 2016: “Democrats are paving the way to impeach Donald Trump.”
   
   NewsBusters released a video montage depicting media figures discussing the possibility impeaching Trump as early as November 2016.
   
   But when the accusations of collusion and obstruction imploded, Trump’s mortal enemies needed something else. Finally, they settled on Ukraine-gate.
   
   Here are 9 reasons the entire effort is a fraud perpetrated upon the American people:
   
   https://www.newsmax.com/michaeldorstewi … id/935194/

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Wait for it...
      
      Here come the "that is a right-wing site so I won't even read it" comments.
      
      Its easy to believe how awful Trump is, when you discount all information that doesn't come from very progressive/left sources.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         You have to ask yourself if getting President Donald Trump out of office was the goal, then why not let the voters decide in 2020?
         
         I believe the Democrats are doing this because the corruption of the Obama administration is wide and long.  An investigation into Biden's activities could reveal many things Democrats are terrified to have revealed.

         replyreport