Replies

Riddle me this...

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints September 30, 2019

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.”

Why the push to focus on the new form when it wasn't even used?
Looks like a head fake to me to distract from the fact that this a-hole declared that they had "personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved" when they didn't.

Just something to think about.

BTW...same link...part of the "who" in the 5 W's (Who, What, Where, When and Why) in the form change. 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.

Just trying to answer my own questions, as it were.

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.”

It still doesn’t matter which form was used. The very law either form is based on limits the IC DG’s and even the DNI’s jurisdiction to those employees in the INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. Their jurisdiction and the reporting requirement does not extend to the EPA, NASA, the US Geological Survey, the US State Department, the Department of Justice, and a host of other agencies over which they have zero jurisdiction. . . and among those areas where the DNI and his subordinate have ZERO oversight, ZERO authority, and over which they have even less than ZERO reporting ability on is their ultimate superior executive, the President of the United States, who at the time he was talking to a leader of a foreign nation, was wearing his ultimate leader of the Department of State hat, and who during that call temporarily picked up his ultimax chief law enforcement hat as leader of the Department of Justice.

The POTUS is NOT IN UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY and certainly not their jurisdiction, and the law does not give either of them the authority to eavesdrop on him and report his activities because the law specifically constrains them to "intelligence community members, present and past," especially the IC IG, as an agent of the Congress. That falls under the separation of powers. The act, as written, specifies that the IC IG is, in fact a quasi-agent of Congress. He cannot be reporting on the actions of the executive branch, who is the President, in such a manner, not Constitutionally.

Incidentally, the letter to the chairmen of both the House and Senate Oversight Committees was dated on August 12, contrary to this self-serving press release from the office of the IC IG. If he wrote his letter on August 12, about a phone call that occurred on July 25, and, as he claimed he took 14 days to determine credibility of the "whistleblower," AND the whistleblowe obviously took plenty of time to do his own thorough investigation, which appears to have included interviewing multiple supposed witnesses, and reviewing scads of news articles. . . and then after the IC IG, turns it over to the DNI, as he claims he did, with his recommendation of credible, and "urgent," and having jurisdiction for the new DNI’s (who took office after August 17th) statutory SEVEN DAY consideration, how is it that he wrote his letter disagreeing with the DNI’s decision to not transmit it to Congress as being outside the IC IG’S and DNI’S jurisdiction, as determined by a ruling from career legal counsel in the DOJ, on August 12th???? Something smells all the way to Pluto and back!