A Youtube interview of Fred Fleitz is now at the end of the post. Makes all his good points, although I will say up front that I disagree with Fleitz re the whistleblower form itself. He says he approves the new version, but as I make clear, there was a good reason for the exclusion of second hand complaints from whistleblower status.
This is simple, but it's probably a good thing to set some basic concepts out clearly.
Q. Why would the Intel Community form for complainants seeking "whistleblower" status contain verbiage like,
“The Intelligence Community Inspector General [ICIG] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing ... 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 ICIG] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.”
A. Because the form simply reflects--and is specifically designed to reflect--the provisions of the Intel Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA). From a more substance oriented perspective, the reason for those provisions is obvious: to prevent time wasting gossip and morale sapping witchhunts and personal vendettas.
Q. Well, but, can't you just change the provisions of the ICWPA--so that gossipers are protected, and so the the ICIG can investigate non-IC people, like the POTUS--by changing the form?
A. Are you kidding?
Q. Don't forms get regularly revised?
A. Generally only on a "need to" basis. The substance--the portions that reflect the legal requirements--doesn't change.
Q. But that means that, if the form that the GossipBlower submitted reflects totally different legal provisions from the ICWPA--provisions that are inconsistent with the ICWPA as enacted by Congress, then something went very, very wrong with that revision.
A. Right. Either there was a totally mind boggling screwup with the revision or, as is more likely, there never was a revision and the form the GossipBlower submitted is, essentially, a forgery.
Q. Wouldn't that mean that the GossipBlower could be in very big trouble for doing that?
A. I think so. I also think that anyone who handled that form--like the ICIG who used to be high up in DoJ's NSD when the NSD was doing things like rubberstamping the Carter Page FISA--should also be in very big trouble.
Q. What should be done?
A. For starters, the GossipBlower and the ICIG need to be sworn in before a Grand Jury--ASAP.
Q. But maybe Congress revised the ICWPA?
A. Don't hold your breath on that one.
UPDATE: Fred Fleitz speaks:
Counterpoint (h/t Monsieur America)--Harmeet Dhillon explains, as I do above, why Fleitz is wrong about grounds for obtaining whistleblower status:
Anonymous Sources. Harmeet Dhillon @pnjaban on the ability for anyone in the intelligence community to make baseless claims and act as a whistleblower under new rules. #AmericaFirst #MAGA #Dobbs pic.twitter.com/UhBZbMyvSJ— Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) September 27, 2019