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/
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
We'll see if you can or not, LTL. Let the games begin....
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?
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?
The hearsay propaganda is irrelevant.
The whistleblower said in the memo that he or she had direct evidence. The intel Inspector General confirmed it.
"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.
Meaning you are throwing irrelevant, pro-Trump propaganda into the discussion.
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.
They won't get a chance to vote him out, Ken. He will be long gone before then. How does "President Pelosi" strike you?
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.
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.
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.
I think I know where the smell is coming from. LOL
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
...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.
Yes indeed, Trump never tells a lie or uses second hand info, or does he, Mike?
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.
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/
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.
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.
by Don W 4 months ago
There has been a whistleblower complaint from within the Intelligence Community, but the Director of the National Intelligence (a political appointee) has refused to comply with the law and pass the complaint on to Congress.What's supposed to happen? When the Intelligence Community Inspector...
by Ralph Schwartz 17 months ago
President Trump issued an immediate declassification order on the Carter Page FISA warrant, AND ALL Text messages (unredacted ) related to the Russia hoax from James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page.The DOJ is caught in a tight spot since the President already has all...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
by Randy Godwin 4 months ago
The rapid moving Impeachment proceedings have apparently instigated a close look at the present Constitutional Crisis. Wit |Pompeo and Barr resisting furnishing documents and being questioned, it seems the IG is getting involved.The IG--a Trump appointed official-- has called and urgent meeting...
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
Donald Trump, as late as January 1, 2017, has refused to acknowledge what most everybody, Democrats and Republicans (less Trump supporters) alike know to be true ... Vladimir Putin is behind the arguably successful attack on America's democracy by swaying American voters to vote for Trump rather...
by Randy Godwin 4 months ago
This story says it all. It's obvious to those of us who deal in facts Trump is terrified of his tax returns being revealed. Of course he lied about releasing his tax returns during his campaign, and he has fought tooth and nail to prevent them ever coming to light. Wonder why?I'll wager anything...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|