Posted on 10/04/2019 7:24:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This just isn’t true. No one has shown any changed procedures that affected this report.
This has been known for days. What’s this author’s excuse?
Why do we promote people who lie to us for money?
Isn’t a whistleblower defined as someone who us a FIRST HAND witness to an incident?
That used to be the requirement for a person to be considered a whistleblower.
Well, it looks like the requirements were CHANGED to accomodate this particular person’s second or third hand account as this CIA8 agent was not a first hand witness.
No, the law has always been that second hand reports are OK.
There was some confusing language on one form saying the IG wouldn't forward a complaint to the DNI based solely on hearsay, but in this case the IG satisfied himself it was legit.
It sounds like they're updating the forms but the IG says this WB got the old one that's been in use since May 2018.
It really doesn't matter anyway since the WB claimed direct knowledge of some of the allegations so the complaint would qualify under any version of the rules.
The CIA needs to be shut down. They spy more on Trump than they do China, Russia, Iran, North Korea.....
RE: No, the law has always been that second hand reports are OK.
Well, it’s your word against Sean Davis then. Here is what he reports:
In tense testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on Friday, the inspector general for federal spy agencies refused to disclose why his office backdated secret changes to key whistleblower forms and rules in the wake of an anti-Trump whistleblower complaint filed in August, sources told The Federalist.
As The Federalist reported and the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) confirmed, the spy watchdog secretly changed its whistleblower forms and internal rules in September to eliminate a requirement that whistleblowers provide first-hand evidence to support any allegations of wrongdoing. In a press release last week, the ICIG confessed that it changed its rules in response to an anti-Trump complaint filed on August 12. That complaint, which was declassified and released by President Donald Trump in September, was based entirely on second-hand information, much of which was shown to be false following the declassification and release of a telephone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
SEE ALSO HERE:
TITLE: Intel Community IG Stonewalling Congress On Backdated Whistleblower Rule Changes
(EXCERPT)
Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August. Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior.
No it isn’t.
If you read Davis’s pieces carefully (which he doesn’t want) he never says the law was changed, only the IG’s rules and forms.
In the IG’s statement he was explicit that the law allowed second-hand knowledge but acknowledged that previous versions of the form may have been confusing because they said the IG wouldn’t forward the complaint to the DNI based solely on hearsay.
In this case, the IG determined that the WB did indeed have first hand knowledge of at least some of the claims so the point was moot.
The bigger point to me is that Davis is trying to deceive us, his readers.
For example, Davis never mentions in this article that even if the forms were changed it doesn’t matter. The WB used the old form that was in place since May 2018.
Don’t you think that’s a relevant bit of information in this case?
Davis doesn’t mention it because it blows his whole conspiracy theory to hell.
Davis said this:
“Inspector general for federal spy agencies refused to disclose why his office backdated secret changes to key whistleblower forms and rules in the wake of an anti-Trump whistleblower complaint filed in August.”
If the IG had nothing to hide, why doesn’t he just say this to the panel ( using your words ):
“the law allows second-hand knowledge”. PERIOD.
Instead, according to Davis,
Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August.
Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior.
WHY THE NEED TO BACK DATE THE RULE TO SEPTEMBER?
Here is what 3 Republican Congressmen observed:
“The timing of the removal of the first-hand information requirement raises questions about potential connections to this whistleblower’s complaint,” three House Republican lawmakers wrote in a letter to Atkinson on September 30. “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.”
It would be a simple matter for Atkinson to state -— YOU ARE WRONG ALL OF YOU. THE RULES HAVE BEEN IN PLACED LONG BEFORE THIS WHISTLEBLOWER CAME OUT TO ALLOW SECOND HAND INFORMATION. *THAT* would have been a good response.
Why did he not respond thusly?
BTW, To give your defense of Michael Atkinson more exposure, I suggest you join this particular FR thread so that we can get at the truth:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3784288/posts
This thread is too old and obscure for anyone to pay attention to it.
Funny, that’s almost exactly what he did state.
In the official statement from the ICIG he says:
”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...
He also says:
”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.”
Finally, the WB did claim to have direct knowledge and the IG agreed.
Given that, why would they bother to change the form? They weren’t relying only on second hand information anyway.
Look closely at the statements by Davis and the Congressmen and you’ll see that they don’t dispute any of these facts and don’t provide a plausible reason for the IG to change anything for this WB when he claimed direct knowledge on the old form.
They’re just throwing dust in the air to try to confuse us, and I resent it.
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.