To dignify Ciaramella with the term “whistleblower” misrepresents what he did. Sure, he filed what is technically called a whistleblower complaint. But he had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s controversial July 25 phone call or motivations. Every allegation in the complaint begins with “I learned from multiple US officials,” or “multiple officials told me,” or “officials with direct knowledge informed me.” Just gossip. He never names any sources. Ciaramella acted as the anti-Trumpers’ front man. As for courage, not an ounce: He is cowering from public view.
Ping for your attention, article from the NY Post. Proves exactly what I was trying to get through to you in that previous thread. . . ICIG Atkinson could not have "proved" that Ciaramella’s complaint contained "direct knowledge" because, as cited above, "Every allegation in the complaint begins with ‘I learned from multiple US officials,’ or ‘multiple officials told me,’ or ‘officials with direct knowledge informed me.’”. . . nothing in his allegations was confirmable. For ICIG Atkinson to even investigate the actions of the President of the United States he was going rogue, acting completely outside his statutory jurisdiction. Atkinson had no authority at all to investigate anyone outside the Intelligence Community and he knew it.
Eric Ciaramella was not at any time accusing anyone in his allegations of wrongful actions over whom the Intelligence Community Inspector General has statutory jurisdiction for which the ICIG could legally open an investigation for any reason, even to determine if Ciamarella’s allegations were credible or not, because his accusations named no one covered in the statute. In fact, the statute specifically excluded the person so named from ICIG Atkinson’s jurisdiction under several provisions that Atkinson could not possibly have been ignorant, given that statute was specifically one that empowered his position.
By proceeding as if the complaint were just an ordinary routine action against a member of the Intelligence Community, when it was statutorily anything but routine, failing in his duty to determine that difference the law required by his oath of office to make, ICIG Atkinson’s actions proved his anti-Trump bias and demonstrated abuse of his office. Atkinson continued that abuse when he chose to ignore the three independent legal rulings by career legal counsels about his complete lack of statutory jurisdiction and then unilaterally, arrogantly, and illegally overruled three levels of his own superiors to transmit the case to Congress. I think that makes him complicit in the plot.
The document contained nothing but “second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions” that regulations say are insufficient for a complaint to be acted on. Accounts of wrongdoing from co-workers don’t qualify. Atkinson’s Sept. 30 statement defending his decision to deem the complaint “credible” amounts to: “I did it, because I did it.” He never gave a reason.
Atkinson’s Oct. 4 closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee undoubtedly offers answers, but Schiff refuses to let even House members see it. The transcripts of all 18 other witnesses have been released, but not Atkinson’s. It’s a stunning omission.
It is a stunning omission, and a stunning admission equivalent to: "I did it, because I did it”! WOW! No justification except arrogance! More dancing puppets. . .