[Swordmaker]

Let's examine this claim. You're saying that in one day ICIG:

• received the WB complaint; TRUE
• researched the claim to the satisfaction of his legal and other staff; FALSE: I said he could not have had time. Read for comprehension!
• mapped out everything that would happen over the next 27 days; FALSE: The timeline is, as I told you set by statute. An additional; seven days were requested of and granted by the Congressional committee chairs. FALSE: extra time was unanticipated, just factual; it’s what happened.
• anticipated that the Chairmen would grant an additional 7 days beyond the statute; FALSE: Again, why is anticipating actual the events beyond the statutory 21 days necessary to you?
• drafted the letter anticipating precisely the arguments that the ODNI and Administration counsel would make; RED HERRING! Did you not read what I wrote in the previous thread? It’s a no brainer legal ruling based on both multiple previous similar cases, and the easy reading of the 50 U.S. Code § 3033 Inspector General of the Intelligence Community enabling legislation, especially subsection (k), § (5) paragraphs (B)&(G) which is quite explicit.
• had the letter approved by counsel, including researching and noting the specific statutory references in the footnotes; FALSE; did you not read what I wrote? The ICIG Office career counsel rejected that course of conduct as outside the ICIG’s jurisdiction, they would never approve it. WAKE UP!
• dated the letter 27 days in the future; FALSE! Semimojo? Do you understand anything at all about computer files? He dated the letter for the day he forwarded it. The META DATA, the hidden data that Microsoft Word or any other word processor retains, including edits, exposed when he wrote it. Government documents in particular retain everything! SHEESH!
• signed the letter; FALSE; he signed on the day he transmitted it. Again, SHEESH!
• published the letter in a form such that you can today go examine the metadata. FALSE: the file was made available under FOIA. The META DATA exposed it.

Why did he do this heroic feat in no more than 18 hours?AS SHOWN ABOVE, HE DIDN’T NEED TO DO IT IN YOUR STRAWMAN 18 HOURS.

What did he have to gain by causing a huge fuss in the office of the ICIG and drawing his staff and counsel into his fraud? HE DIDN’T DRAW ANY ”STAFF OR COUNSEL” INTO HIS FRAUD. You keep asserting "facts not in evidence" which are completely false, erecting huge straw crowds. As pointed out above, his staff career counsel issued an opinion that the ICIG had no jurisdiction. He ignored that opinion.

What did he have to gain? Use your head for something other than keeping your hat on, semimojo! He’s a Obama administration hold-over. He’s Deep State. He’s what I’ve told you before, multiple times, he’s playing a role in this drama written by Schiff! WAKE THE HELL UP AND OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE INEXPLICABLE ACTIONS ICIG MICHAEL ATKINSON HAS TAKEN TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN!

He changed the regulations outside of normal regulatory procedures. He changed FORM-401 without going through normal approval processes, in the absence of even an acting DNI. He backdated both regulations and the new, unnumbered claim form to some amorphous time in August from their actual release date in late September. He obfuscated the ICIG law, claiming the whistleblower portion of that statute somehow doesn’t prohibit hearsay, or second- or third-hand knowledge for filing reports, merely because it fails to specifically exclude them, when all jurisprudence in the US is built on only allowing direct knowledge testimony, and all such laws are built on that established and well understood, legal background.

Shill

[semimojo]

Do you understand anything at all about computer files? He dated the letter for the day he forwarded it. The META DATA, the hidden data that Microsoft Word or any other word processor retains, including edits, exposed when he wrote it.

Wait a minute.

Previously you've said

"August 12th — the ICIG Atkinson, as the Meta Data shows, writes his letter of complaint to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Oversight standing committees"

Now you're saying that some elements, like the date at a minimum, were added later.

What, exactly, was written on August 12th and when were subsequent edits made.

You know, this would be a lot easier if you would produce the document with the metadata that proves your assertion.