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.
That's the correct question to ask, see my previous posts.
That claim is not correct. The change was to remove the requirement for a complaint to be deemed urgent, it had to be first hand knowledge.
WHO changed and uploaded the new, revised form?
Who authorized said revisions?
No, that is not correct. See my previous posts. Both versions of the form allow hearing through the grapevine. But the new version took out the instructions that an urgent complaint must be first hand knowledge. The old form had those instructions. Both versions have a checkbox for first hand and second hand knowledge.
Reminds me of Dan Rather's big find AND 0bama's Birth "Certificate"
According to the CIA website, the new rules written under the name of Michael E. DeVine
We need to know where this guy comes from, years employed at agency, etc.
Not quite correct. What was deleted was an instruction rejecting complaints that provide hearsay to be deemed urgent Complaints can still have hearsay in both the old and new versions of the form. But in the new version the instruction about hearsay not being allowed for urgent were removed.
Hearsay was and is allowed for a complaint. It is not allowed for an urgent complaint. The instructions in the old form said so. Those instructions were removed in the new form.
I see that now. The form has the date August 2019 on the bottom. Sorry.
It’s reminding me of the coup in Honduras.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaeledmonddevine
Michael E. DeVine
Analyst in Foreign Affairs (Intelligence and National Security) at Congressional Research Service
Washington D.C. Metro Area500+ connections
Congressional Research Service
About
Senior leader, manager and strategist with strong experience across national security sectors including strategy and policy formulation and implementation, intelligence collection and analysis, risk assessment and crisis mitigation. Currently serving as an analyst in intelligence and national security with the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service.
• Experienced in aligning diverse stakeholders, public and internal resources to develop risk assessment analysis and cohesive security strategy.
• Conceived, planned, built, improved and sustained comprehensive and high performing security and risk management programs that are cost effective, mitigate risks and support business objectives.
• Strong hands-on experience facilitating change management processes including obtaining buy-in from constituents for the execution of new policies and procedures.
• As strategic adviser to Afghanistan’s Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development commended by Commander, NATO International Security and Assistance Force in Afghanistan for promoting and facilitating economic development and political stability of rural communities through the Afghan government’s National Solidarity Program.
• Co-recipient of the National Intelligence Achievement Medal for “strategic engagement with Iraqi tribal, religious and government leaders and for improving security, strengthening the rule of law, and fostering national reconciliation.”
• As Assistant Professor for National Security Strategy at The Eisenhower School, National Defense University, directed the Near East/South Asia academic concentration program preparing senior military officers and diplomats for assignment to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Experience
Congressional Research Service
Analyst in Foreign Affairs (Intelligence and National Security)
Congressional Research Service
Aug 2017 – Present2 years 2 months
Library of Congress, Washington DC
U.S. Government
Senior Analyst and Strategist
U.S. Government
Sep 2015 – Aug 20172 years
Washington D.C. Metro Area
The Eisenhower School, National Defense University
Assistant Professor for National Security Strategy
The Eisenhower School, National Defense University
Apr 2013 – Jul 20152 years 4 months
Washington DC
US Navy
Captain
US Navy
1985 – 201530 years
National War College
Fellow
National War College
Aug 2011 – Mar 20131 year 8 months
Washington DC
Afghanistan Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD), Kabul Afghanistan
NATO Strategic Advisor
Afghanistan Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD), Kabul Afghanistan
Sep 2010 – Jul 201111 months
Kabul, Afghanistan
Afghanistan/Pakistan Coordination Cell, Joint Staff
Chief of Staff
Afghanistan/Pakistan Coordination Cell, Joint Staff
Mar 2010 – Sep 20107 months
Washington DC
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
Deputy Assistant Director
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
Aug 2008 – Oct 20091 year 3 months
Washington, DC
Defense Intelligence Agency
3 years 3 months
Division Chief
May 2005 – Jul 20083 years 3 months
Washington DC
Commander, Contingency Operating Base, Iraq
Mar 2007 – Sep 20077 months
Baghdad, Iraq
USS George Washington (CVN-73) Aircraft Carrier
Ship’s Intelligence Officer
USS George Washington (CVN-73) Aircraft Carrier
Apr 2003 – May 20052 years 2 months
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO N2)
Deputy Director Intelligence Strategy, Plans and Policy
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO N2)
Apr 2001 – Apr 20032 years 1 month
Washington DC
Defense Intelligence Agency
Deputy Director, Russia/Eurasia Branch, Defense Intelligence Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
Jun 1997 – Mar 20013 years 10 months
Washington DC
Office of Naval Intelligence
Deputy Director, International Programs, Collections Directorate
Office of Naval Intelligence
May 1994 – Jun 19973 years 2 months
Washington DC
Amphibious Squadron Six, embarked in USS Saipan, USS Nassau, USS Shreveport, USS Ponce
Staff Intelligence Officer
Amphibious Squadron Six, embarked in USS Saipan, USS Nassau, USS Shreveport, USS Ponce
Mar 1992 – May 19942 years 3 months
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe
Operational Intelligence Analyst
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe
Jul 1988 – Feb 19923 years 8 months
London, United Kingdom
USS Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN 69)
Division Officer
USS Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN 69)
1986 – 19882 years
Education
Georgetown UniversityGeorgetown University
Georgetown University
Doctoral candidateLiberal Arts and Sciences/Liberal Studies
2019 – Present
National War CollegeNational War College
National War College
MSNational Security Affairs
2011 – 2012
Afghanistan/Pakistan Fellow
Afghanistan/Pakistan Fellow
U.S. Naval War CollegeU.S. Naval War College
U.S. Naval War College
DiplomaJoint Professional Military Education I
1994 – 1997
University of Southern CaliforniaUniversity of Southern California
University of Southern California
Master of Arts (M.A.)International Relations
1989 – 1991
International Relations
International Relations
University of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Bachelor of Arts (BA)Classics/Latin & Political Science
1978 – 1983
Activities and Societies: Vice Chairman, Student Honor Court
Classics/Latin & Political Science
Classics/Latin & Political Science
The Hill SchoolThe Hill School
The Hill School
Diploma
1976 – 1978
Publications
Religion in the Thirty Years’ War and Peace of Westphalia: Relevant to Pakistan Today?
NDU Press, Joint Force Quarterly (JFQ) Issue 65, 2nd Quarter 2012March 1, 2012
See publicationExternal link
CRS Reports
Congressional Research Service
Languages
Farsi
Limited working proficiency
Groups
Afghan Professionals in Washington DC, Virginia and MarylandAfghan Professionals in Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland
Afghan Professionals in Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland
The National War CollegeThe National War College
The National War College
https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/about/
About CRS:
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) serves as shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. CRS experts assist at every stage of the legislative process — from the early considerations that precede bill drafting, through committee hearings and floor debate, to the oversight of enacted laws and various agency activities.
CRS approaches complex topics from a variety of perspectives and examines all sides of an issue. Staff members analyze current policies and present the impact of proposed policy alternatives.
CRS services come in many forms:
reports on major policy issues
tailored confidential memoranda, briefings and consultations
seminars and workshops
expert congressional testimony
responses to individual inquiries
With public policy issues growing more complex, the need for insightful and comprehensive analysis has become vital. Congress relies on CRS to marshal interdisciplinary resources, encourage critical thinking and create innovative frameworks to help legislators form sound policies and reach decisions on a host of difficult issues. These decisions will guide and shape the nation today and for generations to come.
!!
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45196.pdf
Covert Action and Clandestine Activities of the Intelligence Community: Framework for Congressional Oversight In Brief
Updated August 9, 2019 (!!)
R45196
August 9, 2019
Michael E. DeVine
Analyst in Intelligence and National Security
Author Information
Michael E. DeVine
Analyst in Intelligence and National Security
Was it necessary to post this guys stuff going back to high school.
Ok. Now you know this guys resume, now what.
Sometimes the internet is wasted on people “who just have to know.”
What do you “know” about this guy now?
His resume is public, posted by him.
What do I know now?
On August 9, 2019 he updated the following:
“Covert Action and Clandestine Activities of the Intelligence Community: Framework for Congressional Oversight In Brief”
I know this is getting down into the weeds a bit, but please aware that a native file’s “author” property field is often the person who initially created the form. So, let’s say Bob created the whistleblower form, and Joe later revised it, the Author property field would still say “Bob.” So, Michael Devine may have been the original author of the whistleblower form, but he may not have revised it. I can’t tell from the information citing Devine as the author whether his name was taken from a file property, or gathered some other way. He may well be the author, but I wouldn’t firmly conclude this without more digging.
Do you think he did that by himself? Or did someone help him?
You knew he did that before doxing the guy. So, in essence, you simply wasted everyone’s time.
Give it a rest.
Folks post PUBLIC info, on FR, all of the time. It’s called research and it’s gathered and compiled, for future reference.
What’s your problem?
Are you related to this Devine guy? You sure seem jumpy about something that, again, is (as poster told you) public knowledge.
If it’s no interest to you, then you are always welcome to scroll on by.
President Trump fired Coates at precisely the right time so Coates underlings had to push through a half baked version of the plot in secret with an end around to try to circumvent the new ODNI’s authority and blind side him with a media done deal
It back fired on all of the above but would probably have worked perfectly if Coates was still in office becauseCoates would have been in a position to cover up and block scrutiny and accountability
We never would have learned any of the stuff about the set up and the motives of the whistle blower or that the info was hearsay or any if the other evidence of a set up that has come out
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.