Posted on 10/01/2019 8:22:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Republican lawmakers in both the Senate and House on Monday demanded answers from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) about secret revisions to the office’s guidance on “urgent concern” whistleblower complaints. The Federalist first reported last week that between May 2018 and August 2019, the ICIG secretly eliminated its requirement that potential whistleblowers provide only first-hand evidence of alleged wrongdoing.
In their letter to Michael Atkinson, the ICIG, Reps. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) noted that the anti-Trump complainant offered no direct, first-hand evidence of alleged wrongdoing against President Donald Trump. Instead, the complaint is littered with gossip, hearsay, and rumor. The lawmakers specifically asked the ICIG to explain when the whistleblower guidance was revised, by whom, and for what reason.
“Based on the language on [the May 24, 2018] form, it appears that the requirement for first-hand information has been an ICIG policy regardless of how a whistleblower makes an urgent concern report,” they wrote. “Curiously the urgent disclosure form that now appears on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence website has recently changed and no longer contains this explicit first-hand information requirement.”
“[T]he timing of the removal of the first-hand information requirement raises questions about potential connections to this whistleblower’s complaint,” the lawmakers continued. “This timing, along with numerous apparent leaks of classified information about the contents of this complaint, also raise questions about potential criminality in the handling of these matters.”
The letter informs the ICIG that he must provide answers to their questions about the timing and rationale of the secret changes to the whistleblower guidance by noon on Thursday, October 3. The lawmakers told the ICIG to treat the letter as a formal demand to preserve all evidence related to the changes to the internal ICIG whistleblower rules.
Of particular note on the letter is the signature of McCarthy, the top Republican in the U.S. House. Nunes is the top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Jordan is the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee.
Multiple senators sent a separate letter on Monday seeking similar information from the ICIG. That letter, from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, and Sen. Mike Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the ICIG to provide all documentation surrounding the revisions to the whistleblower guidance previously issued by the intelligence community.
“Why did the IC IG intially require first-hand information in its May 2018 disclosure form?” the senators asked. “Why did the IC IG remove the requirement for first-hand information?”
“Please list all personnel who were involved in and approved both the May 2018 form and August 2019 versions of the form,” they wrote. “Please provide all records discussing the creation of the May 2018 form as well as the change in reporting standards found on the August 2019 form.”
The law directing the whistleblower process, called the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), gives the IC IG sole authority to determine whether a particular complaint is credible.
“The Inspector General shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible,” the 1998 law states.
As of May 2018, the IC IG declared that first-hand evidence was required for “urgent concern” complaints, which are forwarded to the relevant congressional committees if the IC IG believes them to be credible.
“FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED,” the 2018 document declared, in bold, underlined, all caps text.
“In order to find an urgent concern ‘credible,’ the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information,” the document noted. “The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.”
“This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing,” the guidelines continued. “Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.”
Both the general counsel of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the anti-Trump complaint failed to meet the requirements for “urgent concern” complaints detailed in the underlying ICWPA statute.
“[W]e determined that the allegations did not fall within the statutory definition of an ‘urgent concern’ and that the statute did not require the complaint to be transmitted to the intelligence committees,” DNI Jason Klitenic wrote to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on September 30. “The present complaint does not allege misconduct within the Intelligence Community or concern an intelligence activity subject to the authority of the DNI.”
In a September 3 opinion on the matter, the DOJ OLC also found that the “urgent concern” complaint from the anti-Trump intelligence community employee was statutorily deficient.
“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,” DOJ lawyers determined. “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,” they wrote. “We conclude that it does not.”
“The C.I.A.’s growth was ‘likened to a malignancy’ which the ‘very high official was not sure even the White House could control … any longer.’ ‘If the United States ever experiences [a coup to overthrow the government] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon.’ The agency ‘represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.’”
And if the requirement was secretly changed then who told the “whistleblower “ about it? How would he know he could suddenly report hearsay and gossip?
Here is a quick cut-and-paste of the above pdf:
Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints
(September 30, 2019) The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) processes complaints or information with respect to alleged urgent concerns in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) and the ICIG’s authorizing statute. With respect to the whistleblower complaint received by the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG processed and reviewed the complaint in accordance with the law.
The law required that the Complainant be “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.” 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). The ICIG confirmed the Complainant was such an employee, detailee, or contractor.
The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respect to an “urgent concern,” which is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant alleged information with respect to such an alleged urgent concern.
In addition, the law required the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community within 14 calendar days to determine whether information with respect to the urgent concern “appeared credible.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(B). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined, after conducting a preliminary review, that there were reasonable grounds to believe the urgent concern appeared credible.
At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the following language:
In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.
The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”
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, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations. The Complainant followed the law in filing the urgent concern complaint, and the ICIG followed the law in transmitting the information to the Acting Director of National Intelligence on August 26, 2019.
In 2018, the ICIG formed a new Center for Protected Disclosures, which has as one of its primary functions to process complaints from whistleblowers under the ICWPA. In early 2019, the ICIG hired a new Hotline Program Manager as part of the Center for Protected Disclosures to oversee the ICIG’s Hotline. In June 2019, the newly hired Director for the Center for Protected Disclosures entered on duty. Thus, the Center for Protected Disclosures has been reviewing the forms provided to whistleblowers who wish to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees. In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.
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. The ICIG will continue to update and clarify its forms and its websites to ensure its guidance to whistleblowers is clear and strictly complies with statutory requirements. Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern
In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower’s filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress’s intent, and the whistleblower’s intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.
These changes were made in advance and in preparation for this particular Ukraine phone call complaint....and everybody knows it.
It's hard to not to laugh that there was some other reason to change the complaint form requirements other than for this impeachment complaint.
The Deep State doing their legwork ahead of time to nail Trump.
Time to disband the CIA. They have always been a criminal enterprise.
So despite not meeting the requirements, the IGIC signed off on it, but we peons aren’t allowed to know what “additional information” the complainant had that satisfied the IGIC. Bullshit.
There need to be some perp walks and imprisonment of all these deep state rats.
Justice Delayed is just business as usual as long as the DoJ stumbles along in a drunken stupor.
What does the text of the law in question provide [5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(C).]? Sect (C) seems to exempt CIA agents from the whistleblower law. This appears to be yet another wet-dream of the Socialist Democrats bent on destroying America to usher in the globalist fascists.
So the whistle-blower should be questioned under oath as to the identities of whoever helped him write the complaint, and to produce all the drafts of it. And anyone he fingers should then be called in to testify likewise. Plus all of them should be questioned in detail as to precisely how they knew that hearsay would be allowed.
Who made the change? There is nothing confidential about it. That should be demanded.
Complete abuse of power.
Mark Levin was right...
IT’S TIME TO CALL, EMAIL, AND FAX ALL REPUBLICAN US SENATORS AND DEMAND THAT REPUBLICAN CHAIRMEN IN THE SENATE ISSUE 100 SUBPOENAS.
GO AFTER THEIR THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS.
GO AFTER THEIR FRIENDS.
GO AFTER THEIR RELATIVES.
GO AFTER THEIR ACCOUNTANTS.
GO AFTER THEIR RECORDS.
AND IF THEY DON’T GO FOR IT, HOLD THEM IN CONTEMPT.
From Mark Levin
“And finally, where the hell are the Republican chairman in the Senate? Why aren’t they issuing subpoenas? Why don’t they pretend they’re Elijah Cummings or Jerry Nadler? Or Schiff for that matter? I know it’s an ugly thought, but issue 100 subpoenas. Go after their bank accounts, go after their friends, go after their relatives. Go after their accountants. Go after their records. And if they don’t go for it, hold them in contempt.”
TIME TO STOP PLAYING DEFENSIVE ALL THE TIME AND GO ON THE OFFENSIVE!!!
I can hear them screaming, “malicious prosecution!”, now. (Republicans are usually mute doormats, if treated the same)
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3782815/posts
Intelligence watchdog now says whistleblower claimed ‘first-hand’ knowledge, in departure...
FoxNews ^ | October 1, 2019 | Gregg Re, Catherine Herridge
Tells all you need to know about the veracity, integrity, ethics of ICIG Atkinson. That the GOP in Congress is not having a cow over executive privilege material being converted to exalted whistleblower status tells me all I need to know about the GOP/Congress.
This is all crap theater at public expense and damaged national security. I can't wait for Trump to get out the long knives.
Time to disband the federal government. Millions of them, parasites.
More blah, blah, blah and nothing more! No wonder the Kids hate US! They see this shit and deem US no better than any other socialist communist country where laws are meaningless and no one is held to account.
I mean how would you feel if you hear each and every day one side saying the other is totally corrupt and should be impeached and the other side say’s no it’s you trying for a soft coup yet offers no real evidence of it (meaning arrests and consequences). Meaning even if the impeachment is a fraud they are at least showing evidence of their convictions (even if it’s a total fraud).
Another sternly written letter? Uh, oh.
The perp was a CIA spy. Haspel needs to sit under the bright lights of a Senate hearing and explain to the American people why her CIA is sending spies into the WH.
You cannot expect criminals to abide by laws, when you also give criminals the ability to write the laws.
1 Oct: TheFederalist: Intel Community Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions
In a press release issued late Monday, the intelligence community inspector general admitted it changed its policy and its whistleblower form after an anti-Trump complainant alleged that Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president.
by Sean Davis
On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies (LINK) governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019...
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01/intel-community-admission-of-whistleblower-changes-raises-explosive-new-questions/
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.