Pages

Friday, September 27, 2019

NEWLY UPDATED: About The IC Whistleblower Form

UPDATE: Well, I thought this was simple, but it's not exactly. The ICWPA is actually rather sketchy and, I suspect, is controlled at least in part by the WPA--but I haven't checked that out. Still, I can't believe there are no standards. Obviously changing those standards can't be done overnight without telling anybody. So, we'll have to wait for a bit more clarity.

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:




23 comments:

  1. A question that I can't expect you to necessarily know, but i know it out for audience consumption. Maguire testified that he had faith in the ICIG (Michaael Somebody).

    Wouldn't the ICIG know the form had been changed? If not, is he competent? If yes, is he corrupt? If yes, is he (Michael) a whistleblower himself on the Deep State and Schiff and company unknowingly walked into a trap? If this is "the trap", is this why Rudy is so joyous?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought that I was so clever but now that I fully read your whole post, you seem to have arrived at the same conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael Atkinson. He's got some 'splainin' to do, IMO.

      Delete
  3. OK. Is Maguire Deep State? He praised "Mike."

    I'd recommend bringing in some honest outsiders to run some of these agencies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He can't show bias before taking action. It's like Barr saying nice things about everybody. You know it's not true.

      Hey, why not an honest insider? Ha ha!

      Delete
  4. Honest insider? Isn't that imaginary like a unicorn? Or is it an oxymoron? Or both?

    My gut told me that Maguire was honest. But as Missourians say, "show me."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frankly I'm fed up with giving people the benefit of the doubt.

      Delete
  5. Remember when I was bummed out because Joe DiGenova said there probably wouldn't be any prosecutions? Could that have been a false flag to give confidence to the plotters to try something stupid?

    A lot of times I'm the last one to figure out that something is going on but I just have the feeling that Trump/Barr/Durham pulled a sting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As if we need more proof, this new episode of corruption is a smoking gun confirmation that the Deep State is engaged in a continuing de facto coup to remove a duly elected president by any means necessary. They will not stop or be deterred by anything less than real indictments, arrests, and prosecution. This also proves that Obama Admin Fifth Columnists are still active and deadly serious. They have no compunction about bending rules, breaking laws, and committing horrific acts of treason with arrogance and impunity. Most commoners in our citizenry are now well beyond cynicism and becoming genuinely alarmed and angry. It is only a matter to time until something terrible occurs as a result of this festering wound in the Rule of Law. Hopefully Barr and Durham will take action sooner rather than later.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Regardless of first-hand or second-hand knowledge, an IC employee could still bring information to the IG, so I guess I lean towards requiring first-hand knowledge. Either way, the whistleblower protection doesn't exist to protect fake whistleblowing which is what I expect is going on here. Lou makes an excellent point when he points out all the examples of 'I was told', 'According to officials.' This sounds like another Deep State, Dem, Media setup.

    I'm not for prosecuting legitimate whistleblowing but I'm not for giving out get-out-of-jail cards freely for undermining the President when he is exercising his legitimate constitutional authority. I think the system was working fine with the first-hand knowledge complaint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dillon is right. Anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy knows the problems with trying to right wrongs, but chaos is not the solution. That only serves wrongdoers.

      Delete
    2. If anyone can file a complaint based on anything, then someone else can file a complaint against the leaker at anytime.

      Delete
  8. You succinctly said in two sentences what I was trying to say in two paragraphs!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Based on my military experience (14 years as a USAF Intelligence officer), I see the situation as follows.

    If an employee is concerned about wrong-doing, then he should raise his concerns up through his chain-of-command. He should raise his concerns first to his direct supervisor. If his concerns are not resolved, then he should inform his direct supervisor that he will raise it to the the next higher level, and then he may do so.

    That is the normal way to raise concerns about wrong-doing.

    The Inspector General is available when there is a significant problem in raising your concerns up through the chain-of-command. A common example would be when the alleged wrong-doer is the direct supervisor or the supervisor at the next-highest level.

    This CIA guy who is the whistle-blower should be required to state a good reason why he could not raise his concerns normally up through the CIA's chain-of-command.

    Did the whistle-blower ever discuss his concerns with his own direct supervisor? If not, then why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, and that's how I recall it too. But this is policy stuff so the IG or the DNI brass change the rules to facilitate impeachment.

      Delete
    2. I will add another thought.

      The Intelligence Community Inspector General himself should have asked the "whistle-blower" whether he had raised his concerns through his chain-of-command. And if the whistle-blower responded that he had not done so, then the ICIG should have asked why he had not done so.

      These questions and answers should have been documented by the ICIG.

      I assume that the ICIG did not ask such questions or document such answers because the ICIG too is a Trump-hater in the Deep State.

      Delete
    3. That seems like a totally safe assumption.

      Delete
  10. I read Sundance's latest piece on how the House rules might be used here. So, I am going to take his latest piece and make a prediction as if Sundance is 100% correct about the House Democrats constructing the Articles of Impeachment with no Republicans in the room and then voting them out of committee after a short debate to the House floor for debate an passage.

    Here is the prediction- the whistleblower is never called to testify under cross examination- he will deposed as an anonymous source only, and only by Democratic member and staff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As it happens, I just finished that myself. You're probably right--that will certainly be the intention. What the administration does could be another story. At the Senate trial, all that should be fair game.

      Delete
    2. Then Senate takes case, excludes democrats and Mittens and exonerates the President.

      Delete
    3. I'd like to see Trump's legal team do a full expose of the Russia Hoax and the coup attempt, calling all relevant witnesses.

      Delete
  11. We're at a fever pitch now and the voters need to decisively spank the Dems at all levels, presidency, house, senate, governorships, state houses, etc. Until then, we have to play hardball back. Let the Senate set the same partisan rules for the trial.

    One way or the other,this fever has to break.

    ReplyDelete