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.
So he’s probably the expert on how to get around oversight.
Would love it if someone could figure out exactly for sure when the rules changes made under his name allowing hearsay whistleblowers was put in. Sept 23, 2019, some change was posted, is that when the no-hearsay standard was abolished? Or earlier?
I just wonder what compelled you to post his resume. And are you 100% sure it’s the correct person? I’ve seen multiple cases of doxing on FR of the wrong person. How can you be sure you did not just do that?
What purpose did it serve? You provided nothing that was not already known in the context of the story.
I didn’t post anyone’s resume.
No one has posted ANY info, here, that is NOT already PUBLIC info.
What part of THAT are you having such a hard time with???
You are providing NOTHING by posting your harping and incessant complaining.
Again...if you’re not interested, SCROLL ON BY.
Stop harrassing FReepers and accusing them of things they ARE NOT doing.
Maybe I should report about how Adam Schiff used his position to secure himself some private time with a bunch of little boys from Haiti who were secured for him by the Clintons.
I don’t know if it’s true but it’s what I heard and the accusation is so troubling that it MUST be immediately investigated!!!!
Incredible coincidence.
But it forced Trump to give up the transcript so it worked.
Employees of the gov’t can also now submit scuttlebutt about any anti-Trump activities or attitudes within the gov’t. I hope they get 100,000 complaints filed.
Actually, its much worse.
Depending on the agency or organization, I believe the IC is populated anywhere from 35-55% percent left wing globalist and socialist types.
Where the rub really meets the road, they are actually working together, or carrying out their efforts and plans under the watchful cover of religiously militant left wing ideologue’s in the Legislative Branch (both houses). That makes the entire IC terminally dangerous to the existence of liberty and our U.S. Constitution.
There is no doubt this goes deep into the Judicial Branch as well.
Isn’t it interesting, under “0”, a service member was not allowed to look at DrudgeReport, Fox News, etc... , as they were could be undermining to the anti-American efforts of their president!
Today, subordinates are being loudly encouraged to manufacture anything they can dream up, to hurt their Chief, regardless of damage to the U.S. around the world.
How can a military even function in such a climate...
I said “hearsay is not admissible in court”. That is separate from whistleblower complaints.
So just make up chit.
“Rachel Maddow on MSNBC said...”
Ok, let’s play that game.
I heard a rumor that Congressman Al Green knocked up nearly a hundred high school girls.
All’s fair in politics and war.
The nature of the evidence is irrelevant. It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters!
This “plan” has been in the works for over a year now - dirty rats.
They conveniently gutted the requirement of first-hand whistleblower knowledge.
who’s in charge of the See Aye A anyway?....
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.