Pages

Friday, September 27, 2019

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Oh My! Intel Community Whistleblower Hanky Panky?

The IMPORTANT UPDATE is down the page. Please continue that far. This appears to be a fast developing story.

This looks really suspicious. Sean Davis at The Federalist has a very detailed article just out that explains that the previous requirement that an Intel Community complainant who is seeking "whistleblower" status under the IC Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) needs first hand knowledge was stripped out--to allow for hearsay, gossip, scuttlebut, whatever. That means that anyone IC employee can run to to their favorite Congress critter with gossip--or made up stories--and demand whistleblower status with all the attendant legal protections. What kind of a way is that to run and Intel organization? It's custom made for--framing a President?

The article is Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge--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. It's detailed, but here are some highlights. Note the timing:

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.”

Here's how the previous form used to read:

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.

Please note, the old form doesn't say that the complaints won't be addressed if they're based on second hand knowledge. It simply says the complainant won't be accorded whistleblower status, which carries with it special legal protections. The reason is obvious: to discourage baseless complaints. Like the one we just saw.

I'll bet Sue Gordon, recently ousted by Trump from ODNI, could shed some light on that. But for right now an IC spokeswoman refused to comment to Davis.

Of course, the GossipBlower still fails to qualify as a whistleblower for other reasons.

UPDATE 1: Thanks to an emailer. Stephen McIntyre appears to nail down the date of the revision: August 2019. That's when Adam Schiff and the GossipBlower first got together. HOW VERY CONVENIENT!

Stephen McIntyre
@ClimateAudit 
Here is something seriously strange. The Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form located earlier today at DNI is only two days old according to its pdf properties.  
this version of the form (datestamp Sep 25, 2019) permits submission of second-hand material, which was not permitted according to document entitled Information About Filing a Disclosure of Urgent Concern posted on Sep 23, 2019 here 

 IC IG ICWPA Form 401 dated 24 May 2018 requires “urgent concerns” to be about an “intelligence activity,” be “reliable first-hand knowledge,” and not be “second-hand knowledge.” 
3/ thus far, I haven't been able to confirm the original provenance of the Information About form placed online by @PedroIsraelOrta on Sep 23. It looks real, but needs to be confirmed.

4/ regardless, the datestamp properties (Sep 25, 2019) of the Urgent Disclosure Form presently online at DNI need to be explained. 
5/ reader @LT51552424 sharply observed that the Urgent Disclosure Form (with Sep 25, 2019 modification datestamp) contains footer "Rev: August 2019". 
So in the midst of this unprecedented CIA leak/"whistleblow", the DNI changes its Urgent Disclosure Form. What was it before?

UPDATE 2: 


time to FOI documentation of form revision. To be precise, it's possible, even likely, that form was not "revised" as no evidence of previous form. The footer "Revised" might be camouflage.



8 comments:

  1. I looked in the article for a mention of any IC source who might have provided a heads-up on the policy change. There is none. It seems federalist.com had to find this on their own.

    I'm certain that only indictments of IC officials, followed by immediate housecleaning (e.g. revocation of clearances & "reassignment" of all relevant IC personnel), will have any effect on the institutional corruption. The IC is an embedded Banana Republic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The IC is an embedded Banana Republic."

      I like that. I like that very much. This morning when I did my "The CIA Is Nonpolitical" I didn't quite realize how very tongue in cheek that would be by evening.

      It appears to be rotten to the core.

      Delete
  2. The change was important for a non-obvious reason. Sure, it allowed the complaint to be move forward by the ICIG, but the real point is that it was designed to shield the whistleblower from perjury charges should he ever have to testify-i.e. the whistleblower will just defend errors by pleading, "Well, I can't account for my complaint being wrong on the details because I wasn't there, I just heard about it all." However, I don't think the Democrats have thought this through carefully enough. The whistleblower will still have to testify from whom he has heard these things, and it is there that his story is going to collapse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These seems like a real screwup to me. I can't believe that Sean Davis and others have got it wrong.

      Delete
    2. I just did a new post on this.

      Delete
  3. I'm so disgusted my how much the IC gets wrong. Maybe some major cuts to the IC are warranted. I'm not advocating doing anything stupid but this is just ridiculous.

    The Deep State needs to be confronted, pronto.

    Maybe you've already said this but the UkraineHoax can probably be added to the conspiracy charges that I hope Barr and Durham are building.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never thought I'd say this, but the IC needs to be pulled inside out. The country cannot afford this BS. I realize that ultimately the problem is probably political and even societal, but something has to be done. For starters, the GOP needs to take back the House so constructive reform can be enacted.

      Delete
  4. I'm kind of culturally backwards so I don't know what the hottest Christmas gifts are for 2019. But I'm willing to give them all up for Schiff, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Biden, Obama, Weissmann, Mueller, Burr, Warner, etc. indictments.

    Santa could also bring me the Pientka 302s. I promise that I'd share them with you.

    ReplyDelete