Easy to know. ICIG Atkinson sent the letter to Chairman Adam Schiff and Senator Richard Burr on September 9, 2019, but the META DATA on the lCIG’s letter complaining about how the DNI and DOJ handled it was August 12, 2019, the day he created it, the same day he received the complaint!
How is that possible? How could he know the determination would be made by his own office’s career legal counsel, the DNI’s legal counsel’s determination, and the determination of the DOJ’s legal counsel if he had not been advised that WOULD be the obvious and LEGAL determination on this complaint, which had been the same as had been made in prior such determinations involving prior administrations outside of the Intelligence Community?
That’s simple too. As soon as IG Atkinson read that complaint, on the first day he received it, he knew it would be kicked back by the DNI, DOJ, and all of the career legal counsels due to the complaint not being under his jurisdiction. There are multiple reasons why Atkinson would know it’s not in his jurisdiction right off the bat, and not something he’s even permitted to investigate at all.
Why would it not be under the ICIG’s jurisdiction? First of all, except for a few positions in the White House, most appointed employees in the administration, and most certainly and specifically the President are not members of the Intelligence Community; secondly elected officials, as is the President, are statutorily not subject to IC whistleblowing reporting; thirdly, the subject matter is not permitted be reported at all due to statutorily being a difference of policy; fourthly, having to do with a Diplomatic phone call, it is a matter of Executive Privilege, and again, statutorily excluded. These are all determinations that have been made multiple times before by multiple legal counsels, under multiple administrations. It’s a no brainer.
The ICIG would know these facts of his statutory jurisdiction as well as he knew the inside of his eyeballs. It would be like a city cop not knowing where his city’s city limits are, if he did not. Yet IG Atkinson, instead of dismissing the complaint out-of-hand, or telling Eric Ciamarella to take his dog and pony show to the FBI, proceeds to exceed his authority and jurisdiction, and his own currently published, and therefore, official regulations and complaint form, to investigate something he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt will be LEGALLY tossed out as exceeding his statutory authority and jurisdiction. Not only does he proceed to illegally open a case he knows is beyond his jurisdictional authority, he sits down on the same day he receives the complaint and composes a letter accusing a DNI who has yet to take office of “somehow abusing his office in a political manner,” and does the same about his further superiors at the DOJ for routinely doing what has been done in the past in similar cases, to deny his conclusions about something he has no jurisdiction doing and has not yet even sent to them!
He knows very well what is going to happen when he sends this to the DNI’s office, no matter who is sitting in the DNI’s seat. It’s a foregone conclusion, it will be declared not in the ICIG’s jurisdiction. That’s why he can write the letter in advance and know it will be useful weeks later, no matter what happens when he sends it on. It will be rejected for the same reasons. He will just claim it’s supposedly for political reasons protecting President Trump, even though it is normal operating procedures.
THAT META DATA date inside his letter is exactly what exposes him as part of the plot. It’s not the date when he sent it, but the date when he wrote it that shows what’s going on.
You say the WB didn't have direct knowledge, but : "As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct..."
Semimojo, a lie is still a lie, no matter WHO is making excuses for it. EVEN YOU!
Again, you are not realizing that it doesn’t matter WHAT Ciamarella claimed in his PERJURED check box or in his multiple pages of lying statements, what matters is that he LIED in all of it. The claim that he had DIRECT EVIDENCE does not exist in any of the statements in his multiple pages of legalese his attorneys prepared for ICIG Atkinson to find credible. Not a single whit of direct evidence. NONE. I’ve read it. How can Atkinson find what is simply not there?
I again repeat, I read every word in the legal eagle prepared section and there is no way that the “WB,” as you keep referring to Eric Ciamarella—What are you? A shill for the MSM? Use his damned name, for Pete’s sake, we on FR aren’t protecting that lying snake!—was ever in a location where he could have had any “direct knowledge” of the events for which he was filing a complaint.
Eric Ciamarella had been kicked out of his positions at the White House and sent packing in early 2018, if not earlier, under suspicion of leaking other classified communications. The leaks STOPPED after he was sent back to the CIA and his “need-to-know” access to White House communications was cut off! Ergo, he could have had no “First Hand” knowledge of anything he claimed to know.
It was ALL second and third hand. He LIED! Get that THROUGH YOUR HEAD! Eric Ciamarella, the WB, “Whistleblower,” who is Eric Ciamarella, is a KNOWN and complete LIAR! Get it? He committed Perjury when he checked that box he had first hand knowledge and signed the complaint form!
You can dance and quote the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s talking points as much as you like, but you cannot get around the fact that Eric Ciamarella, the WB, “Whistleblower,” who is Eric Ciamarella, is a KNOWN and complete LIAR! Get it? He committed Perjury when he checked that box he had first hand knowledge and signed the complaint form!
IF Whistleblower Eric Ciamarella had DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of the accusations, something not a single one of the witnesses before the Schiff of Nadler committees professed to possess, don’t you think he would have been called to present that DIRECT KNOWLEDGE to those committees?Ergo, semimojo, ERIC CIAMARELLO did not have any DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of any wrong doing, and only lied, over and over.
That, in fact, is what I read what he attested to in his filed complaint. LIES. Not a word he related to his attorneys who wrote down what he claimed comported with what was claimed was said in that call was in the official (and attested under oath accurate by persons who had actually heard to call) transcript of the phone call. In other words, he lied about having first hand information.
That also makes it a fact that the ICIG, a long term member of the Deep State, the Intelligence Community Inspector General Atkinson is also a liar when he says he found first hand information, he did not. He revealed himself as a coconspirator. He’s DIRTY. GET IT? Stop using him as a source to clean up the WB, Whistleblower, spy, leaker, Eric Ciamarella’s reputation or Eric Ciamarella’s lying third-hand, second-hand, rumor laden and completely lacking in first hand evidence statements. The ICIG is a Player in this DRAMA. His role was to give Eric Ciaramella some gravitas, than a mere walk-on role, and to hide him behind a fake, non-existent claim that he’s entitled to anonymity, to make ad hoc CHANGES to the FORM and REGULATIONS and backdate them, allowing Eric Cirarmella’s hearsay and third and second hand reporting credibility which Adam Schiff’s script started to come apart in late September. He did what his puppet masters told him to do, performing willingly when they pulled his strings, and like a good little puppet, he dances when they want him to dance.
Your arguments about the various legal opinions from the DNI and DOJ might matter if the ICIG had not heeded them and instead forwarded the complaint to Congress, but he didn't.
Despite being given the authority to determine urgency he deferred to the Administration's wishes and didn't transmit the complaint, so again your point is moot.
You’ve got to be kidding! Semimojo, where have you been? HE DID! Did you not read the factual events I outlined for you? That’s exactly what ICIG did. You are arguing a falsehood. How in the hell do you think the Intelligence Committees in Congress GOT the complaint?
It is NOT ICIG Atkinson’s role to determine “urgency,” as you claim, but rather to advise the DNI of his investigation of a matter filed as an urgent matter. It is the Director National Intelligence who makes the final determination. Did you read the ICIG’s whistleblower law about this? Again, semimojo, I did read it In fact, I posted it in its entirety on Freerepublic. From what you posted above, I don’t think you did. . . Because what you just claimed is not in that statute.
That law specifically excludes political matters. It excludes elected officials. It excludes policy matters. It specifically excludes the ICIG from reporting anything that is NOT in the Intelligence Community. That is what that statute specifically states. The ICIG MUST defer to the DNI’s determination about whether or not it is an urgent matter or not, or if it is in the Intelligence Community. Specific to what you just claimed, the statute says ICIG has two calendar weeks to investigate a reported matter, at which point he must submit a report on his findings to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who then has five calendar days to determine whether or not the matter rises to an urgent matter or not, or if it is even within the IG’s jurisdiction. It is the DNI’s duty to decide to either report or not report to the the Oversight committees of Congress. In this instance, the new Acting DNI (appointed August 15, 2019), to be absolutely certain, not only consulted his own career legal counsel, went further by requesting the input of the DOJ’s career Legal Counsel, and, to allow for more time due to the subject matter spanning a weekend, notified Chairmen Schiff and Burr that there was a potential IC urgent matter that might come to them and requested MORE TIME beyond the statutory five days to determine jurisdiction, for which both granted an additional five days. It was determined by all career legal counsels at every level that the ICIG did not have legal jurisdiction over the President, nor was it a matter to be referred to the Intelligence committees as it was outside their spheres of oversight. Atkinson decided he was more knowledgeable than all of those superiors and reported it, like a good little deep state dancing puppet.
The ICIG DID in fact ignore the determination of the DNI and the DOJ that it was NOT in his jurisdiction and and he did indeed send his August 12 META DATA dated letters to Chairmen Schiff and Burr, complaining that an urgent Intelligence matter was being mishandled politically. That is a fact. THAT IS HOW THEY GOT IT, aside from the known fact that Schiff and his staff had been talking to Eric Ciamarella in early August if not late July, scripting this whole thing, likely assigning Atkinson his role to do this. There really is no other explanation for the META DATA dates on things that should not have those dates on them.
META DATA dates and timestamps are very telling when you look for them. Meta Data time stamps on uploaded/downloaded files shows that the DNC was not hacked by the Russians, for example, but was downloaded locally to a Flash Drive. In fact, the July 5th Metadata on those data files which indicate it has Russian, has been shown to be pasted on, not original, and the original Metadata can be found underneath. Oops.
Please post a link to a document where I can examine the meta data.
You want us to believe that on August 12th the ICIG received a complaint and within less than 24 hours, realistically within 12 hours, the ICIG drafted a response including details of future actions/reactions, passed it through all of the legal and other reviews required, had it typed with all footnotes, etc., had it published and then sat on it for the next 3+ weeks without any changes for no reason. There was nothing to gain by locking in the response on day one!
The really laughable aspect of this is you claim to have a first hand understanding of the workings of federal bureaucracy yet claim that this scenario is plausible.
The other possibility is the dates on the official letters from the Trump-appointed ICIG are accurate and you may have misinterpreted some alleged meta data on an internet document.
I suppose it's possible you've logically kicked William of Ockham squarely in the nuts but I'm skeptical.
Regarding the rest of your post, just a few points:
The ICIG verified that the WB had direct knowledge of some of the alleged actions.
You can say the ICIG was deluded, dishonest, or just mistaken, but you can't say he didn't verify the fact.
As you know, I've posted the link to his own words.
Second, the ICIG never transmitted the complaint to Congress. In fact, under statute his job was to transmit the complaint to the DNI (after determining that it was an urgent matter) and the DNI was to transmit it to the Intelligence Committee.
The DNI said the President wasn't covered by the statute and declined to transmit the charges.
Have you read the letters you're referencing?
Do you understand the basics of this process?
The existence of the complaint was leaked specifically because the complaint wasn't transmitted to Congress.
You can dance and quote the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s talking points as much as you like, but you cannot get around the fact that Eric Ciamarella, the WB, “Whistleblower,” who is Eric Ciamarella, is a KNOWN and complete LIAR! Get it? He committed Perjury when he checked that box he had first hand knowledge and signed the complaint form!
Let's see, I can choose to believe you who has seen some stuff on the internet and has demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happened here or a highly respected, nominated by President Trump, confirmed by the US Senate, professional who's gone out in public with his statements allowing anyone to prove him wrong (which they haven't).
Sorry, you're my second choice.
The ICIG DID in fact ignore the determination of the DNI and the DOJ that it was NOT in his jurisdiction and and he did indeed send his August 12 META DATA dated letters to Chairmen Schiff and Burr, complaining that an urgent Intelligence matter was being mishandled politically. That is a fact.
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
The letters he sent to Schiff and Nunes were sent because the whistleblower complaint had not been transmitted to Congress.
Can you acknowledge this?