Posted on 10/01/2019 8:25:40 AM PDT by Cboldt
Oct 01, 2019
Butler County, Iowa - Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) made the following comments regarding the intelligence community whistleblower and related issues.
"This person appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected. We should always work to respect whistleblowers' requests for confidentiality. Any further media reports on the whistleblower's identity don't serve the public interest--even if the conflict sells more papers or attracts clicks.
"No one should be making judgments or pronouncements without hearing from the whistleblower first and carefully following up on the facts. Uninformed speculation wielded by politicians or media commentators as a partisan weapon is counterproductive and doesn't serve the country.
"When it comes to whether someone qualifies as a whistleblower, the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren't legal ones. It's just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim's credibility.
"As I said last week, inquiries that put impeachment first and facts last don't weigh very credibly. Folks just ought to be responsible with their words."
Grassley is the chairman and co-founder of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus and has authored and co-authored many of the nation's whistleblower protection laws.
-30-
...OR have to answer to not-previously-evident laws. As in hidden. Right down to the underlying regs.
Thanks for some sanity.
Suppose I walk into my gov’t co-workers office when he’s in the bathroom and see porn on his computer. No one but him can see the screen normally, so I can’t say I’ve actually seen him watching porn on his computer at work. But isn’t this something you’d want a whistleblower to be able to report? They couldn’t claim to have firsthand information that the co-worker was watching porn on his government computer but once a WB complaint was filed, the IT people could put a monitor on his IP address and gather evidence to prove it.
That’s why these laws are being changed. In fact we do want people to report misdeeds even if they are not eyewitnesses to them. A wide funnel that is narrowed down through investigation.
The bigger issues here are: 1) who gave the information to the WB and put them up to filing, 2) who provided legal assistance to them 3) why did the WB check the box that it was firsthand information and then specifically state that it was not.
That the form did not require first-hand information is irrelevant, as is the date it was changed. The IC IG has explained that was done by a newly-created position this year as a part of an overall review and is in keeping with federal law.
The leaker of executive privileged material has been converted into a righteous whistleblower by a corrupt bureaucrat, Atkinson.
Has little to nothing to do with hearsay.
Suppose the receptionist at Grassley's doctor handed out his medical records, disclosing something he did not want to be made public - addict, alcoholic, medicated for schizophrenia. Leaking this is a violation of law. Grassley's position, if he is consistent, is that if that information is made public by an inspector general (it is OF COURSE in the public interest to know this!), the identity of the leaker must be protected.
He'd piss and moan that this is none of the inspector general's business, and he'd be right, but hey, now it's a whistleblower, not a leaker.
Darrel Issa. My apologies. Grassley is only worth several millions. Nowhere near what Nancy is worth.
As Nunes pointed out in the hearing, the DEMs are abusing every facet of the whistleblower process, including the privacy that is usually associated with investigations.
I agree with Grassley, in principle, about true whistleblowers. The real issue, though, is when the “whistleblower” is a CIA mole in the White House, with an agenda quite contrary to the President’s agenda. In that case, he no longer should be conveyed whistleblower protection, and, in fact, along with his knowing superiors, should be prosecuted.
It happens. Old Chuck is annoying, for sure, but read his other news releases. He’s baiting the ICIG.
Grassley is odd in that he makes sure fellow senators know about scams instead of ignoring the scams, but doesn’t grandstand to the press because he feels his #1 job is bringing home the bacon to Iowa.
Now there is an DOJ/OLC opinion that stifles this sort of action. "Urgent Concern" Determination by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Generally the gatekeeper is an inspector general. In this case we have a corrupt ICIG by the name of Atkinson, working with corrput CIA people who are reporting executive privileged material.
On teevee, DEMs (Tarlov) are making hay with Grassley's statement, as well as DNI Maguire's statement that the whistleblower and ICIG was acting in good faith.
Grassley is wrong. What does the text of the law in question provide [5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(C).]? Sect (C) seems to exempt CIA agents from the whistleblower law. This appears to be yet another wet-dream of the Socialist Democrats bent on destroying America to usher in the globalist fascists.
We can play whistleblower vs. whistleblower. ICIG Atkinson needs to get a claim that somebody leaked executive privileged information, a Trump/Zelenskyy conversation record, and that leak should be investigated. Leaking of exec privileged material is an urgent concern for national security.
Yeah, I remember when folks were trashing Grassley’s handling of Kavanaugh. Oh he was blowing it big time. And then Kavanaugh was confirmed. Grassley is shrewder than people think. He also is decent and circumspect. Slow and steady wins the race is Grassley’s style and that’s what he’s doing here.
That’s a good analogy. The “whistleblowers” claim was not in the purview of the IGIC as it didn’t comply with the statute. Not to mention it was not an intelligence matter to begin with.
Grassley served in the Iowa Legislature before running for national office.
I remember late Friday afternoons when everyone but Chuck left the Statehouse for dinner and beverages. Grassley remained at his desk, reviewing proposed bills introduced that week.
Change the form!!!!
Trump should have drained the swamp!
Wow. There’s a Republican champion.
Somebody needs to remind Grassley that the ICIG changed the whistleblower rules “on the fly” to make this impeachment charge possible.
To me the bigger issue is that the POTUS is not part of the intelligence community. So bupkus is what the Dems have.
I would disagree that first hand information does not need to be a criteria for a whistle blower report.
There needs to a middle ground. There should be no whistle blower report that is not based on first hand knowledge.
But the IG should be able to use a report that is not first hand information to initiate a request for an internal review with an answer of that review submitted to DOJ legal review, with a copy to the IG.
If it deserves any further investigation that should be the answer from DOJ legal, otherwise the IG does not have a case.
The only caveat would be if the DOJ is the employer of the complainant, and then the legal counsel for another department would have to be used to look at and review the initial complaint.
In this current hoax of a complaint DOJ legal review found the WB complaint did not rise to a level requiring report to Congress.
Yeah. That is literally a no brainer.
A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information ...
Yet here we are, with Congress saying the statute gives no leeway, the DNI SHALL turn over the complaint within 7 days. And then the debate gets stuck by conflating the arcane and legally correct use of the term of art "urgent concern" with the ordinary usage.
Same garbage with the Plame controversy. Could have been cut off right away, she is not under NOC, not covered, not "outed," no crime to investigate, end of ordeal.
The government works in cahoots to extend these ordeals so they are entertaining for the public, and the public gets invested in the government. Congress plays along, the snakes in the executive play along, the courts play along -- none of them honest, all of them outseide the "rule of law," the whole thing patently unconstitutional.
And the pundits are running off on "not firsthand, not firsthand!" As if curing that would validate the complaint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.