The CIA changed its whistleblower rules to include 2nd hand whistleblowers in September, but back-dated them to August

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,636
2,386
113
.
The rules change and the back-dating were an attempt to whitewash the CIA Trump complainant whose complaint had already been lodged. The complaint contained only second hand hearsay information.

Deep state collusion ......another example of things which are

.....wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 7, 2019
Backdating the whistleblower rules change? Intelligence Inspector General doesn't want to answer questions about it

Deep State has been after President Trump from the before his presidency, and its latest trick has been in orchestrating a rules change to ensure that any deep-stater can come forward with secondhand information, as a "whistleblower.

It's supposedly to ensure that wrongdoing bruited about at the spy agency water coolers gets into the hands of authorities. Problem one: Spy agencies don't do water cooler talk.

But politics is always a topic, so now we have one or two leakers from the ranks of the still-embittered Deep State, taking the cover of 'whistleblower' as a result of that rules change, with a string of unsubstantiated secondhand information.

Sean Davis at the Federalist has been doing a yeoman's job of ferreting out this leaks-as-whistles con job, with the first report that the rules allowing secondhand stories to go into whistleblower filings were mysteriously changed just in time for the first whistleblower to come forward, supposedly in August.

Now he reports that it gets worse. Davis reports that it turns out the rules weren't changed in August, they were changed in September, and the watchdog agency, the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IGIC) backdated that rules change.

"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."

And worse still, he doesn't want to answer any questions about it. This sounds dishonest. And at a bare minimum, he's being non-transparent, a stonewaller, same kind of person you find in dictatorships.

Obviously, this is a guy who's got something to hide. And the case strengthens that the whole impeachment bid was a pre-planned political put-up job, staged with coordinated moves between Deep State operatives and bitter, rabidly anti-Trump Democratic congressmen. Sound like a political system that can call itself 'democratic'? This is the sort of thing that happens in banana republics. Stuff like this would be right at home in a place like Ecuador.

File under: 'stinks.'
But read the whole thing here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Community IG Stonewalling Congress On Backdated Whistleblower Rule Changes

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......


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
 

test_article

Kelly Slater status
Sep 25, 2009
9,440
507
113
Body of Christ, Texas

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,636
2,386
113
Nope, wrong.

Your AP "fact check" is obsolete. Your AP argument predates my information, the revelation that the rules changes were POST-dated by a month, by six days.

.......as if the AP was any kind of reputable fact-checker.
.
 

Phi1

Phil Edwards status
May 21, 2002
6,976
3,463
113
Hell Cajon, Ca
Pointing to suspicious activity, McCarthy cites the removal of some information from the standardized complaint form, which previously stressed the need for first-hand information for an IG to determine the complaint credible. The IG said it had removed that language from the form earlier this year because it determined that “it 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.”
Yeah, I'm sure "The Federalist" has zero bias, lol.

Ben Domenech. Ben Domenech (born January 1, 1982) is an American conservative writer, blogger, and television commentator. He is the co-founder and the publisher of The Federalist, host of The Federalist Radio Hour, and writes The Transom, a daily subscription newsletter for political insiders.
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,636
2,386
113
Yeah, I'm sure "The Federalist" has zero bias, lol.
As the Federalist article shows, the facts of this back-dating come directly from the IG's testimony before congress. The fact that The Federalist released this information when your vaunted lamestream media refused puts the lie to your assertion that your sources are superior.
.
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
49,894
23,520
113
.
The rules change and the back-dating were an attempt to whitewash the CIA Trump complainant whose complaint had already been lodged. The complaint contained only second hand hearsay information.

Deep state collusion ......another example of things which are

.....wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 7, 2019
Backdating the whistleblower rules change? Intelligence Inspector General doesn't want to answer questions about it

Deep State has been after President Trump from the before his presidency, and its latest trick has been in orchestrating a rules change to ensure that any deep-stater can come forward with secondhand information, as a "whistleblower.

It's supposedly to ensure that wrongdoing bruited about at the spy agency water coolers gets into the hands of authorities. Problem one: Spy agencies don't do water cooler talk.

But politics is always a topic, so now we have one or two leakers from the ranks of the still-embittered Deep State, taking the cover of 'whistleblower' as a result of that rules change, with a string of unsubstantiated secondhand information.

Sean Davis at the Federalist has been doing a yeoman's job of ferreting out this leaks-as-whistles con job, with the first report that the rules allowing secondhand stories to go into whistleblower filings were mysteriously changed just in time for the first whistleblower to come forward, supposedly in August.

Now he reports that it gets worse. Davis reports that it turns out the rules weren't changed in August, they were changed in September, and the watchdog agency, the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IGIC) backdated that rules change.

"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."

And worse still, he doesn't want to answer any questions about it. This sounds dishonest. And at a bare minimum, he's being non-transparent, a stonewaller, same kind of person you find in dictatorships.

Obviously, this is a guy who's got something to hide. And the case strengthens that the whole impeachment bid was a pre-planned political put-up job, staged with coordinated moves between Deep State operatives and bitter, rabidly anti-Trump Democratic congressmen. Sound like a political system that can call itself 'democratic'? This is the sort of thing that happens in banana republics. Stuff like this would be right at home in a place like Ecuador.

File under: 'stinks.'
But read the whole thing here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Community IG Stonewalling Congress On Backdated Whistleblower Rule Changes

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......


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
the inspector general has already stated that the first (and second) whistleblowers
both have first hand information.

I'm not sure why you're still glomming on to a two-week old story about a moot form.
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,636
2,386
113
the inspector general has already stated that the first (and second) whistleblowers
both have first hand information.

I'm not sure why you're still glomming on to a two-week old story about a moot form.
The back-dating articles I posted are current, and reflect extremely recent congressional testimony.

I've read the first whistleblower's complaint. It contains no first hand account of Trump's phone call. .......as if anything asserted was illegal. The second complaint was issued because the first complaint fell flat. It's a lie to lump the two complaints together to claim that, between them, they contain first hand information.
.
 
Last edited:

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,636
2,386
113
.
You and your CIA accomplices don't like the results of the 2016 presidential election. This an attempt at a military coup.

The next election is coming soon. What are you afraid of?

.......desperation.
.
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
49,894
23,520
113
The back-dating articles I posted are current, and reflect extremely recent congressional testimony.

I've read the first whistleblower's complaint. It contains no first hand account of Trump's phone call. .......as if anything asserted was illegal. The second complaint was issued because the first complaint fell flat.
.
here's the official statement issued by the DNI



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.
 

Phi1

Phil Edwards status
May 21, 2002
6,976
3,463
113
Hell Cajon, Ca
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
You can search "IC IG ICWSP Form 401" to find this top secret document in highly classified PDF format.

They changed the form to more clearly state what was already allowed, 2nd hand knowledge.

The Federalist is trying to imply that updating the form was a change from previous policy. The "lamestream" media isn't reporting on a policy change because it's a lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CutnSnip

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,636
2,386
113
You can search "IC IG ICWSP Form 401" to find this top secret document in highly classified PDF format.

They changed the form to more clearly state what was already allowed, 2nd hand knowledge.

The Federalist is trying to imply that updating the form was a change from previous policy. The "lamestream" media isn't reporting on a policy change because it's a lie.
Okay, I'll do the work which you failed to do. Here's the CIA form you are referring to:


It says:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. I know about the information I am disclosing here and:
☐ I have direct and personal knowledge
☐ I heard about it from others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the bottom it CLEARY says:

Rev: August 2019

According to the Inspector General's congressional testimony that date is a lie. The form was revised in September.
.
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,636
2,386
113

Phi1

Phil Edwards status
May 21, 2002
6,976
3,463
113
Hell Cajon, Ca
If You are referring to the first "whistleblower" complaint, either the whistleblower lied about the content of the complaint (I read the complaint), or the IDIG lied about it.
.
Your conspiracy theory hinges on the date a form was revised but ignores that there was no change to policy.

Perhaps it was revised late August, approved and posted early September? Not like government agencies are notoriously slow with paperwork.

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.
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,636
2,386
113

So you're saying that, after the first "whistleblower" contacted the House Majority leader the CIA's Inspector General changed his mind about only allowing first-hand whistleblowers to come forward anonymously.

Good to know about the Dimocrat communication network.
.
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
49,894
23,520
113
If You are referring to the first "whistleblower" complaint, either the whistleblower lied about the content of the complaint (I read the complaint), or the IDIG lied about it.
.
why did the Inspector General say the whistleblower had first-hand knowledge?

also, why does it matter when the whistleblower statute doesn't mandate first-hand knowledge to begin with?
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,636
2,386
113
why did the Inspector General say the whistleblower had first-hand knowledge?
AGAIN. I read the first "whistleblower's complaint. He lied.

also, why does it matter when the whistleblower statute doesn't mandate first-hand knowledge to begin with?

1: It doesn't really matter if a second-hand witness' testimony is protected. His testimony is inadmissible. The witness cannot be cross examined. It's hearsay.

2:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community issued a four-page news release seeking to smother concerns of its handling of the recently revealed whistleblower complaint filed against President Trump. Following The Federalist’s reporting last week on the changes to the “urgent concern” whistleblowing form, IG Michael Atkinson’s office has been under fire.

Sean Davis—who broke the story on Friday—reported yesterday that the IG has now acknowledged it modified the form in response to the Trump “whistleblower,” stating: “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.”

While ICIG’s admission vindicates a huge story that the mainstream media quickly downgraded to a debunked conspiracy theory, the news release left unanswered the larger question: Had the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s office adopted a policy that whistleblower complaints must be supported by first-hand knowledge?

The evidence suggests as much and the news release, rather than providing clarity, obfuscated the question.

“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,” the news release says. But, in fact, the form did more than request information about whether the individual possessed first-hand knowledge: The form emphatically stated “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.”



The ICIG’s office did, however, accurately note that the Intelligence Community Whistle Protection Act (ICWPA) does not require “first-hand knowledge.” And the ICIG’s office is correct that it “cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law.” But why then formerly include the directive “first-hand information required?”

Here Atkinson, the current inspector general, rests blame on his predecessor, noting that the form that used that language has been “in place since May 24, 2018,” and that it “went into effect before Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018.”

Then, in an effort to quiet concerns, the news release stated that “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.”

But did Atkinson’s office ever accept and process a whistleblower’s complaint based solely on second-hand information? That is an entirely different question. Given that in the latest reporting period the ICIG transmitted only four ICWPA disclosures to the director of national intelligence and congressional intelligence committees, it seems highly probable that no one has filed a complaint based solely on second-hand gossip, especially since the instructions stated “first-hand information required.” Those without first-hand knowledge, then, would likely either not attempt to file a complaint or, like the instance of the current Trump accuser, would check the box claiming first-hand knowledge even when they had none.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

........pointing directly at the stupidity and meaningless of this blustery accusation.
.