Posted on 09/30/2019 3:53:19 PM PDT by george76
Was the ‘nonpartisan’ Congressional Research Service weaponized to force the House into a premature impeachment inquiry?
Sean Davis wrote Friday about a secret update to the intelligence community inspector general’s “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” complaint intake form. It revamped the procedure to allow hearsay complaints, while prior versions of the form had included an admonishment that the IC IG could not find a complaint credible without “reliable, first-hand information.” While it appears the IC IG has the statutory right to promulgate new procedures, the rationale for the change and the curious nature of the timing has still not been shared.
Compelling new evidence now shows that the purportedly nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) may have been weaponized to mislead members of Congress and the American people — all in the name of advancing the impeachment process against President Trump. It appears that misleading guidance about precisely how expansive the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) is was incorporated into the report just as the current whistleblower controversy began to pick up steam.
These Kind of Report Revisions Are Highly Unusual.
...
Yes, the Statute Is Quite Specific on ‘Urgent Concerns’.
The updated CRS analysis inexplicably claimed that the statute was “not specific on who has the authority for determining whether a complaint, aside from its credibility, constitutes a matter of ‘urgent concern.’” This was one of only three assertions in the entire discussion of the ICWPA that wasn’t meticulously footnoted with the underlying statutory reference.
...
Something Fishy Seems to Be Going on Here.
It should concern every American that the timing and substance of the updated CRS analysis advances a particular partisan narrative at the expense of a clear application of the law
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Is not the answer that the new version allows any person in any jurisdiction to claim to be a whistle blower?
Think of the attacks on Sara Palin and Judge Kavanaugh on steroids with hundreds of complaints, maybe thousands.
The president would spend so much time fighting them the government would come to a halt.
Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints September 30, 2019
Why the push to focus on the new form when it wasn't even used?
Looks like a head fake to me to distract from the fact that this a-hole declared that they had "personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved" when they didn't.
Just something to think about.
The entire Federal gov’t is now weaponized!
Does anyone have Liberal/Leftist friends? They are quite weird...secretive, paranoid towards conservatives. They work for the DNC in their county and hide what they do
Has anyone ever notice this?? I have noticed since the eighties.
They do hate us. NO I am not crazy. I just observe things
The ICIG’s Center for Protected Disclosures has developed three new forms entitled, “Report of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse UNCLASSIFIED Intake Form”; “Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form-UNCLASSIFIED”; and “External Review Panel (ERP) Request Form –UNCLASSIFIED.” These three new forms are now available on the ICIG’s open website and are in the process of being added to the ICIG’s classified system.
Just trying to answer my own questions, as it were.
Nice researching.
And who, you might ask, is the "newly hired Director for the Center for Protected Disclosures"?
You got me. Can't find hide nor hair of who this person is.
p
This has been said before, but is usually attributed to someone who has spent time in field operations:
The best thing that could ever happen within the agency would be for everyone operating in the field to be brought in and put behind the desks and all the drones behind the desks be sent to postings in warm sandy places where live rounds are flying... Then let natural selection take its course.
It still doesn’t matter which form was used. The very law either form is based on limits the IC DG’s and even the DNI’s jurisdiction to those employees in the INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. Their jurisdiction and the reporting requirement does not extend to the EPA, NASA, the US Geological Survey, the US State Department, the Department of Justice, and a host of other agencies over which they have zero jurisdiction. . . and among those areas where the DNI and his subordinate have ZERO oversight, ZERO authority, and over which they have even less than ZERO reporting ability on is their ultimate superior executive, the President of the United States, who at the time he was talking to a leader of a foreign nation, was wearing his ultimate leader of the Department of State hat, and who during that call temporarily picked up his ultimax chief law enforcement hat as leader of the Department of Justice.
The POTUS is NOT IN UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY and certainly not their jurisdiction, and the law does not give either of them the authority to eavesdrop on him and report his activities because the law specifically constrains them to "intelligence community members, present and past," especially the IC IG, as an agent of the Congress. That falls under the separation of powers. The act, as written, specifies that the IC IG is, in fact a quasi-agent of Congress. He cannot be reporting on the actions of the executive branch, who is the President, in such a manner, not Constitutionally.
Incidentally, the letter to the chairmen of both the House and Senate Oversight Committees was dated on August 12, contrary to this self-serving press release from the office of the IC IG. If he wrote his letter on August 12, about a phone call that occurred on July 25, and, as he claimed he took 14 days to determine credibility of the "whistleblower," AND the whistleblowe obviously took plenty of time to do his own thorough investigation, which appears to have included interviewing multiple supposed witnesses, and reviewing scads of news articles. . . and then after the IC IG, turns it over to the DNI, as he claims he did, with his recommendation of credible, and "urgent," and having jurisdiction for the new DNI’s (who took office after August 17th) statutory SEVEN DAY consideration, how is it that he wrote his letter disagreeing with the DNI’s decision to not transmit it to Congress as being outside the IC IG’S and DNI’S jurisdiction, as determined by a ruling from career legal counsel in the DOJ, on August 12th???? Something smells all the way to Pluto and back!
My question is: where exactly - in the Constitution or US Code - is it written that the Intel Community and/or its Inspector General has authoritative review over the acts or decisions of the POTUS?
The 'whistleblower' is to report on misdeeds they have knowledge of in the Intel community... but POTUS is not in the Intel Community - he is the boss of said community. Why are we allowing an anonymous tattler to judge the appropriateness of actions of POTUS?
Of course the answer is because it serves the purposeful schemes of the Demo'rat Party. Why should any more be said? Were the shoe on the other foot - where the Dems were on the receiving end - then it would be loudly proclaimed that the whistleblower had no standing and had exceeded their authority.
But then, what are the chances of a DS bureaucrat tattling on a Dem? When pigs can fly.
CRS used to be a first rate outfit. Another institution the progs have corrupted.
Bookmark
you get it. Check the first hand knowledge box, then the release of the complaint does not describe first hand knowledge anywhere.
I’ve tried to be all over this from the get go.
Things don’t smell right.
Base on this ICIG “clarification” why even have the “First hand knowledge” box in the first place ?
Democratic-Run House Creates New Whistleblower Ombudsman
“During their first hours controlling the House in the 116th Congress, Democrats on Jan. 3 and Jan. 4 pushed through an array of single-chamber rules changes that included creation of a long-sought Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman.
By a 418-12 vote, the House on Thursday approved Title II of a larger resolution creating the position appointed by the chamber’s speaker and supervised by the House Administration Committee to “promulgate best practices for whistleblower intake for offices of the House.”
Creation of the office—still unfunded—was spearheaded by Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., the co-chair of the bipartisan House Whistleblower Protection Caucus who in 2013 set up a whistleblower hotline to ease the way for agency employees who wish to disclose wrongdoing without jeopardizing their careers.
Michael Atkinson explains here
“Michael Atkinson explains here”
imo michael atkinson pulls an adam schiff and makes a parody excuse for his questionable conduct after he is caught and called out on it.
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.