Replies

no, that’s the Coup’s talking point to justify the changes they made. However, there is no paper trail for any of the changes made. The new form does not even have a proper federal Form ID. The original Form for the report was ICIG Form 401. The new form lacks that number. There is no trail in the record where it shows it has gone through any kind of editing, approval, and certification process required for adoption, something required of all Federal forms. Similarly, there is no paper trail showing the required steps for changing the Federal regulations for enforcing the IC whistleblower statute. None. No public hearings for input, no time period for input from those to be affected by the changes, etc, no submission to Congress, nothing. Zip. Just suddenly, there they are, appearing in the DNI’s website for public use, as was the new, unnumbered form, on September 27, 2019! Not only that, there are some very strange typos in both, typos that would have been found and corrected were they both submitted for editing and correction had the proper procedures been followed, instead of being created ad hoc to provide verisimilitude to the whistleblower’s second and third hand reporting when they suddenly realized it was going to be a problem. . . Creating the bogus form and regulations from whole cloth and backdating them for use in a hurry just after it became public knowledge on September 25.

The problem with your theory is the whistleblower didn't use the new form.

He used the old form and more to the point stated that he did have first hand knowledge, so your entire rant is moot.

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

The problem with your theory is the whistleblower didn't use the new form.

He used the old form and more to the point stated that he did have first hand knowledge, so your entire rant is moot.

It’s not a "theory" but facts, as much as you want to make it a theory. The form he used was the previous from, I know that, but they want plausible deniability to be saying the new regulations were already in place but the new form wasn’t ready yet, when they realized the old Form-401 and regulations prohibited second and third-hand hearsay as a basis for instigating an ICIG action. It stands to reason the ICIG would not want to be in the position of chasing unsubstantiated Office rumors, so such reports are summarily prohibited if not supported by first-hand knowledge. Otherwise the ICIG would be flooded by rumor mongers reporting coworkers out of spite.

It is also a known fact that ICIG dated his letter to the chairs of the House and Senate oversight Committees, complaining of how this whistleblower complaint was handled by the DNI and DOJ, on the same day the he first received the complaint, two weeks before he ever submitted the matter to his superior, his new, as yet to be appointed boss—the two weeks he was supposed by statute to be investigating the complaint—who was the new DNI who would take office three days later, and would, after receiving the ICIG’s report, by statute have seven days to review it and make a decision about whether it was an "intelligence community urgent matter" required to be brought to the committees’ attention or not.

Instead, we know ICIG Atkinson wrote and signed his complaint letter about the political handling of the Whistleblower’s complaint despite the written advice from: his own IC legal counsel; his boss’s—the DNI—decision, based on the DNI’s legal counsel’s legal determination; and the further determination of DOJ’s legal counsel staff’s ruling, all concluding that the President was not a member of the Intelligence Community, was therefore not under the statute in question, and was therefore not under ICIG Atkinson’s legal jurisdiction, was in fact explicitly excluded by definition in the statute from such jurisdiction, and it was therefore not an "intelligence community urgent matter," requiring the attention of the Intelligence Oversight committees. But, Atkinson had predetermined his course of action, or rather it had already been scripted for him, given the date on his letter to Chairman Schiff and his Senate counterpart. . . and Atkinson reported it anyway, because that was the role puppet Atkinson was to play in sloppy playwright Schiff’s pre-written script, a script with so many holes in the plot they had to make last minute ad hoc cutting room edits, ala new regulations and new Form.

He used the old form and more to the point stated that he did have first hand knowledge, so your entire rant is moot.

I’ve read every word of the legal filing of the whistleblower. He did not provide ANY firsthand knowledge in a single statement in it. He could b]not because he was never there. He wrote, or his attorneys wrote, that he spoke to others who heard of others who heard. . . Etc. he had one unnamed source (Lt.Col. Vindland?) who related the call, which was completely inaccurate in the description given, to him, initiating his horror. But the only "first hand" knowledge he related was of his actions in doing research of second hand information. Nothing beyond that. Yes, he checked the box on Form 401 claiming he had "standing" to file the complaint, but everything on the actual complaint pages denied that. He perjured himself on Form-401 by checking that box. He had no first hand knowledge of what he was filing from his office in the CIA office. He was literally not present to have first hand knowledge.

Get it through your head that ICIG Atkinson is dirty too! Who do you think conspired to slip in new regulations without holding the legally hearings and public comment time, and submitting the Form -401 alteration without submitting it to mandatory Federal paperwork reviews and justification or editing, or even requesting a revision date and number?

The date on it is not even in the regulation Federal format! It duplicates the first page color header on all subsequent pages, a huge no-no on Federal forms. It has no page numbers on any pages, another huge no-no on any Federal form that will require citing in legal documents. The real Form-401 has a page number at the top of each page, I.e., ICIG—Form-401, page 2 of 4. The new form? Nada. Nothing, nope, no page numbers, no form number. The even changed the name of the form, so finding it based on the name of the old form won’t work. Legally citing the new form would be a nightmare; it would have to be referred to by its full five word name.

It’s an amateur fake created on the spur of the ad hoc moment by someone unfamiliar with US Government Form requirements, doing things that would not survive the standard form creation process in any bureaucracy. I’ve struggled to get things through enough bureaucracies to know. Think of the amateurishness of Obama’s long-form Birth Certificate, and you’d be close.