Sean Davis at The Federalist has been doing the important reporting on the ICIG/"Whistleblower" scame, and I won't try to steal his thunder. Thunder? Well, I think this is pretty important. Follow the link for his full article. I will add that the reason this development may be especially important is that Trump took the drastic step of releasing the call transcript. If not for that, the cries of "coverup" might have drowned this out. So, Sean Davis:
Intel Community Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions
In a press release issued late Monday, the intelligence community inspector general admitted it changed its policy and its whistleblower form after an anti-Trump complainant alleged that Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president.
 By Sean Davis
OCTOBER 1, 2019
On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday. While many in the media falsely claimed the ICIG’s stunning admission debunked The Federalist’s report, the admission from the ICIG completely affirmed the reporting on the secretive change to whistleblower rules following the filing of an anti-Trump complaint in August.
The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints.
There are two important points here.
First, the ICIG, Michael K. Atkinson, attempted to argue that the change in the form was made so that the form would conform with the Whistleblower statute. Here's the problem with that. Like many statutes, the Whistleblower statute is a general sort of outline that is fleshed out by regulations. Those regulations are not simply written up by some agency head somewhere who uses his imagination. No matter what you think of the Administrative State, regulations are the product of a lengthy consultative process and reflect considered policy choices. Whether you agree with that process or not, regulations don't get changed by simply changing a form. Proposed changes go through the same process. If you want to change the form in any substantive way--like, to contradict the regulations--then you must first change the regulations. I strongly suspect that Michael K. Atkinson, if he isn't already in the hot seat, will be very shortly.
Secondly, the original complaint was in fact written up on the form that explicitly required first hand knowledge. And, in fact, on the original complaint the complainant checked off the box saying that the complainant had first hand knowledge. Also the box saying that he had second hand knowledge. But we know that the complainant was not present for the phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy. That means he had no first hand knowledge of the facts that formed the actual basis for the complaint--that was all hearsay. Presumably the helpful people at the ICIG--and maybe in Adam Schiff's office?--who assisted the complainant read his original complaint and said, Uh oh! Do you really have first hand knowledge? No? Well, hey presto, we'll change that form so you can admit the truth. But as I said above--that's not how government regulations get changed.
Maybe somewhere in the halls of government, instead of a hot seat, there's a hot bench, so Michael K. Atkinson--with all his deep connections to Obama's corrupt DoJ National Security Division--can scootch over and make room for a few more people. I think 18 USC 1001 False Statements to the Government would cover this situation pretty well. And there might be other statutes that could be used as well.
Nota Bene:
I've also gone through document line-by-line and confirm these results: no claim in Complaint is sourced to first-hand information
Not holding my breath on Atkinson taking any heat for this. I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteI never recommend breath holding, but I think Barr will want to do something about this. In a principled way. And that would IMO be prosecution. Atkinson is likely to find himself way out on a limb.
DeleteSo much was done wrong in regard to forcing this form change explicitly as a means to enable the complaint to go forward that any competent prosecutor could gain a conviction if Atkinson is indicted. Atkinson must be aware of his jeopardy and hence would likely flip rather than face disgrace and a felony conviction. This should be a no brainer for Barr and Durham. It would send a message to the Deep State of "back off or face real consequences."
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, there's always the possibility that he is being looked at for whatever role he played at DoJ NSD when the various FISAs were approved.
DeleteHere's my take on this. What Atkinson did is risky, reckless and stupid. I assume that he is not a stupid man. Therefore, I conclude that he is desperate. I also conclude that the Dems, Deep State and Media (I hate having to type out what is essentially one entity) are desperate.
DeleteYes. They know Barr and Durham are closing in.
DeleteFrom the complaint:
ReplyDelete"I was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Department and Intelligence Community officials were also briefed on the contents of the call as outlined above."
Unless his first hand knowledge is hidden in a redacted section, this is the sole instance in which the complainant reports on a document/information that he had seen first hand. There is a too cute by half game being played here, if the whistleblower received a readout of the call why are all his claims sourced not to that readout, but to other folks' impression of the call? Because, none of his salacious claims are backed up by the readout he received, nor by the actual transcript of the call.
What I have literally no one mention or discuss is this- the law requires credible evidence. This is why the regulations require 1st hand knowledge and documentary evidence. Just read the complaint that was filed on the revised form- the rumorblower relates hearsay evidence, but names none of the people he is citing. In short, the ICIG and the DoJ have no way to evaluate the credibility of the accusation.
ReplyDeleteThe other issue I see here is that is likely someone back-dated the revised form trying to make it look like it was first created in August before the complaint was first formulated, but the ICIG, I think, slipped up (couldn't keep the lies straight in a sort of panic) when he noted the change happened after the press started inquring about the complaint itself, and this could only have happened in September, over a month after the complaint was initially filed.
--> In short, the ICIG and the DoJ have no way to evaluate the credibility of the accusation.<--
DeleteActually, you demonstrated that the complaint contains NO credible evidence--and that's the only possible evaluation of the accusation.
Jeffrey and Yancey, if you were the complainant, would you want to come forward and be examined aggressively about any of these issues?
ReplyDeleteOf course not. The only evidence he would have to offer are the names of the people he is claiming to be paraphrasing. That would put him in terrible jeopardy if those people contradict him by claiming there is no way they would have talked to him about the phone conversation.
DeleteI don't know how Schiff intends to handle this- they need the witness to testify in a public hearing- a closed hearing is no good for the political optics, and if you do it publicly, then there is no way to prevent a cross examination- the Republican minority still has the right to question such a witness in a public hearing. That would be my first question to the witness, whether he is behind a privacy screen or not- "Who are you quoting in your complaint?" There are no good answers to that question that aren't very risky at blowing up in your face.
Hmm, good question. I think the complainant wants to testify, in secret, to HPSCI, but I venture that he wants no part of testifying, publicly, in an impeachment trial in the Senate. Behind closed doors he can recount his complaint, and point out the folks who told him the most outlandish and conspiritorial claims he included in his complaint. When it's revealed that those claims aren't based on actual evidence - for example I am 99.99% sure that no document will show that Trump instructed the "play ball" (w/Giulianil) message be conveyed to the Ukranians, nor will a witness ever testify that he/she was told to do so by Trump - but instead on rumor mongering and slanted conspiritorial analysis then he can say, "That's a problem for the folks who informed me, not me. I reported to the ICIG because I was concerned that the allegations could be true, not that I was certain they were true." Or some self-serving nonsense along those lines.
DeleteI don't know the answer to this, but since Trump has declassified and released the call transcript, would there be any justification for testifying in secret before HPSCI? Would the GOP members be bound to be mum about even some of any such testimony, since the subject matter is no longer classified?
DeleteMore or less apropos to this, I think a very useful big picture way to tie the Russia hoax, the Kavanaugh hoax and now this Ukraine hoax together is in their critical reliance on the Appeal to Authority fallacy to get them up and running.
ReplyDeleteAll three scams begin with a single accuser (in the latest case, the IG is like a co-accuser) who in reality has nothing but fabricated drivel but who is built up to possess great moral and/or professional authority to which the plotters relentlessly appeal. The entirety of the anti-Trump world then runs crazy with the scam so intensely and for so long that the narrative is all but impossible to undo in any kind of thorough manner.
First they appealed to the invented authority of Christopher Steele, then to an invented authority of DOCTOR (!!) Christine Blasey-Ford (especially to her moral authority as a supposed long-suffering victim and survivor), and now to the invented authority of this brave and noble patriot whistleblower risking all to expose the truth for God and Country.
I tie this into Mark's post here because the ICIG is really set up to be a second trusted figure along with the so-called whistleblower. He, too, has been portrayed as Mr. Honest and Reliable, working for the wholly nonpolitical (!!) CIA. Those who insist there’s no reason to examine or question our two newest hero-accusers ignore the central role the myth of the accusers’ skills, rectitude and moral authority play in birthing and then nurturing the scam. If that invented authority can be exposed for what it is early enough – before too much of the myth is beaten too deeply into the public consciousness – the whole putrid edifice comes crashing down. Stripping the Boy Scout mask from the ICIG quickly is therefore important. Doing the same to the Democratic hack whistleblower is more important still. (As is, of course, everything the DOJ is doing, but that’s another story.)
"Stripping the Boy Scout mask from the ICIG quickly is therefore important."
ReplyDeleteYes!