Posted on 09/27/2019 1:49:05 PM PDT by Mount Athos
The intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings, raising 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.”
The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.
The complaint alleges that President Donald Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president. In his complaint, which was dated August 12, 2019, the complainant acknowledged he was “not a direct witness” to the wrongdoing he claims Trump committed.
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.
Markings on the previous version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form show that it was formally approved on May 24, 2018. Here is that original Disclosure of Urgent Concern form prior to the August 2019 revision:
Here is the revised Disclosure of Urgent Concern form following the August 2019 revision:
The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”
The repeated references to information the so-called whistleblower never witnessed clearly run afoul of the original ICIG requirements for “urgent concern” submissions.
The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations.
“I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the respective chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers.
The anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and debunked. While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.
The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.
Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
“I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call,” the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported that Brechbuhl was not on the phone call.
In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.
“The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the September 3 OLC opinion noted. “Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand.”
“The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of “urgent concern” that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees,” the OLC opinion continued. “We conclude that it does not.”
It is not known precisely when the August 2019 revision to the whistleblower complaint form was approved, nor is it known which, if any, version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the complainant completed prior to addressing his complaint to Congress.
Reached by phone on Friday afternoon, a Director of National Intelligence official refused to comment on any questions about the secret revision to the whistleblower form, including when it was revised to eliminate the requirement of first-hand knowledge and for what reason.
This whole thread has to be spread far and wide.
I think PDJT could have some fun with it.
Rules/laws a problem Just change them internallay as needed. Delete sources as as needed.
When Strzock was demoted they put him in the HR dept. to add more deep staters. Sheesh.
Timing. The Hearsay Document is assembled, The document sent to the Committee, then Schiff sits on it for awhile while they get some hack to change “whistleblower” definition to allow hearsay,, THEN they come forward with the claim. Check my times, but I believe this is correct.
I just saw Sekulow noticed this as well and is checking this, so good.....
CAL-AZ State still a good game - I’m multitasking. ;-)
So if I have suspicions, and have no direct knowledge, I too Can be a Whistleblower.
And believe me, from all the stuff I’ve heard, there’s a LOT of suspicious behavior.
I should probably send in 30 whistleblower complaints myself.
Where’s the form?
According to the CIA website, the new rules written under the name of Michael E. DeVine
Analyst in Intelligence and National Security
Congressional Research Office
Is it kind of odd that the CIA new (Sept 23rd) written or rather published under someone who works for the Congressional Research Office? I know the CRO is theoretically non-partisan, but still. Seems odd.
The true government form has in its Header and Footer:
Header:IC IG
Urgent Concern Disclosure Form
Page iiFooter:
IC IG ICWSP Form 401 (then at the far right) Rev. 24MAY18
The new likely bogus and fraudulent non-government counterfeit form, has in its Header and Footer:
Header:(IC IG LOGO then, in all upper case) DISCLOSURE OF URGENT CONCERN FORM(No page number)Footer:
IC IG CPD – ICWSP Disclosure Form (then at the far right) Rev: August 2019
In the Header of the new form, on what has to be a second page, a logo in the header is usually not done, and page numbers are required on a gov’t form yet this one has none. The form’s name has been changed from the previous form’s four word “Urgent Concern Disclosure Form" to five words "DISCLOSURE OF URGENT CONCERN FORM", along with the "I heard it through the grapevine" loose rumor reporting criteria being added.
The very NAME of the form on the footer is even more INCORRECT, and there is no official form number [!], and as in the header, there is no page number indicating this is what page of what number of pages in the entire form, usually a requirements there are multiple pages. Note that the colon after the "Rev" is not a standard government form date pattern which requires a period making it an abbreviation. Finally, what is The "CPD” in the footer’s "IC IG CPDICWSP Disclosure Form"? Where did those three initials come from? they don’t exist on the 24MAY18 form.
Everything about this form screams it hasn’t gone through a full approval process. It’s sloppy. Most likely it’s an ad hoc creation of some young staffer to meet an urgent need to provide verisimilitude to the bogus "whistleblower" assertions when someone noticed the old form required firsthand knowledge. It was cranked out fast by someone not versed in required government form standards.
Bookmark
(HAT TIP researcher Stephen McIntyre)
We are now getting the specifics on how the Schiff Dossier was created out of thin air. Evidence surfacing now shows:
<><> the ICIG only recently created a spanking new official government whistleblower complaint form;
<><> The official government form was custom-made specifically to fit the whistleblower's story;
<><> The official form was changed to allow the filing of complaints “heard from others“ (not "heard first hand" as originally required).
<><> deleted was a reference to rejecting whistleblower complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip.
=================================================
REFERENCE--Falsifying official government documents is outlined in the Crimes Act of 1958.
Falsifying official government documents involves altering, changing, or modifying a document for the purpose of deception.......
can also involve forgery and/or passing copies of false documents as evidence in legal cases.
Falsifyng documents is the criminal MO to cover-up larger crimes and is usually done in connection with broader
criminal aims, such as extortion, government fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, financing terrorism, etc........
===============================================
ACTION NOW
Judicial Watch
425 3rd Street, SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
TELE 1-888-593-8442 between 8:30am and 5:30pm EST.
Call President Trump: Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414
email at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
@POTUS or @realDonaldTrump on Twitter!
US CONGRESS SWITCHBOARD: (202) 224-3121
U.S. Department of Justice
Comment Line: 202-353-1555
Switchboard: 202-514-2000
FBI tip line web site----https://www.fbi.gov/tips
FBI electronic fraud unit----www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-fraud-schemes/internet-fraud
FBI Major Case Contact Center: 1-800-CALL-FBI (225-5324)
==========================================
READ WHISTLEBLOWER'S COMPLAINT LETTER HERE (NINE PAGE PDF):
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf
Intelligence Community IG is a lawyer who ASSISTED in the FISA court document FRAUD, helping those elements of the FBI, along with GPS Fusion and the criminal couple Nellie Ohr and husband crook who has flipped.
This is all unravelling nicely.
The connex is there for Michael Atkinson.. the IG of the IC— who is up to his a@@ in the FISA court FRAUD.
He was “counsel” for the FBI “laundry” to clean up the fake dossier and sanitize it for the FOOLED FISA court who then OK’d the Carter Page surveill and all the other hop skip and jump “legal” approval spying on the Trump campaign and Trump himself.
It really is time to call in the Marines to take over the US Intel Community, FBI, DOJ, and any other RATs’ found. Try them under the UCMJ. Burn them to HELL. Do this before we have to!
Intelligence community changes whistleblower rules to eliminate requirement of firsthand knowledge in AUGUST 2019.
*****************
So anyone can claim anything, and be called a credible “Whistle Blower”?
So how long before someone takes the lead and claims that Pelosi, Biden, and others are agents for the Chicoms?
Wouldn’t they be taken as credible “Whistle Blowers”?
Since hearsay is not admissible in court, my sense is that this was not properly staffed. It never would have made past legal review.
Folks, this is a very serious change. Think Nazis, USSR; Red China.....................................
So tell me, when does the criminal trial for Schiff, Pelosi, Ortez and the like begin?
Appears we have quite a few traitors embedded within the Fed.
Way past time to flush them out and bring back public hangings to serve as a deterrent for future shenanigans.
There is no doubt the form changed but the checkboxes are the same in both versions, allowing both first and second hand information. The difference is the instructions which separate urgent from non-urgent complaints. That is why the house intel dems were obsessing over "urgent" in their questioning of the acting DNI. They say the IG concluded it was urgent. But it is not urgent according to the instructions. The instructions that were removed say that first hand knowledge is required for an urgent complaint.
But any complaint can be made without first hand knowledge. That was true before and true now, in both the old and new forms.
No, not quite. The form always allowed second hand knowledge for whistleblowing. Both versions. But the old version of the form is that first hand knowledge was required for the complaint to be deemed urgent. That instruction was removed in the new version of the form.
They changed the instructions. Both versions allow second hand information for a valid complaint. But the old form had instructions requiring first hand information for an urgent complaint. Those instructions were removed in the new version of the form.
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.