Bogus Claim That IC Changed the Standards for Whistleblowers Debunked; Conspiracy Theorists Claim Vindication
This is a distraction from Trump’s behavior but a useful discussion of how conservative “media” operates these days. Sean Davis, whom I used to respect but who has turned into a Trumpist hack like his colleague Mollie Hemingway, published a Big Expose that purported to show that the Deep State changed its standards for whistleblowers suddenly. According to Davis’s conspiracy theory, there used to be a requirement that whistleblowers have firsthand information before they could even file a complaint. But that was suddenly changed in August to make it possible for this whistleblower to file a complaint with only secondhand information, Davis claimed. Here’s how the Federalist portrayed Davis’s claim:
People who knew what they were talking about, like Cato fellow Julian Sanchez, explained that the law has no firsthand knowledge requirement. (Why would it, if a tip could lead to credible corroboration, which is a common occurence in investigations?) They noted that previous forms allowed whistleblowers to file complaints with secondhand knowledge, but cautioned (in rather garbled language that has since been clarified to comport with the law) that if the preliminary review by the ICIG did not uncover corroboration, the complaint would not end up going anywhere.
Trumpists called people like Sanchez hacks and raced to the airwaves to trumpet the conspiracy theory, which ended up (of course) getting repeated by Trump himself.
WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2019
Yesterday, the ICIG issued a statement that, shortened, could have read “Julian Sanchez was right.” They clarified that the law never required firsthand knowledge.
They acknowledged (as noted above) that they have changed some of the language of the form to comport with the law after questions arose regarding the language of the form, based on this controversy. Critically, the whistleblower filled out his complaint on the old form. I repeat: the whistleblower filled out his complaint on the old form. The controversy was manufactured bullshit.
Making things more delicious, Julian Sanchez told Mollie Hemingway the true facts on Friday — and she ignored him, which caused me to recall how she ignored a correction I sought from her.
So how did Davis and company react? They apologized and corrected their errors, right?
LOL of course they didn’t. They are Trumpists, and Trumpists never apologize or admit error. No, to Davis and company, the ICIG statement that blew up his story was “complete vindication”:
Check out the first screenshot in this post. That is not all Davis claimed and he knows it. He claimed that the ICIG eliminated a requirement that, in fact, never existed in the law.
Which, by the way, he never told readers. I re-read Davis’s original piece on this, looking for the part where he told his readers that the law itself has no firsthand knowledge requirement. Oddly enough, it’s not there! An omission like that by the media that hurt Trump would cause Mollie and Sean to go apeshit for days.
Sean Davis once criticized Trump constantly; check out these 2016 tweets that are available on the Wayback Machine.
Now he gets retweeted by Trump and I’m told he has deleted all his incriminating tweets from 2016 where he justifiably suggested, for example, that Trump was trying to steal charity money from veterans.
I have not changed. These people have. And they should never be trusted.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
This is ignoring the portion of the law that requires,(the ICIG SHALL report WB
complaints that rise to the level of “urgent and credible”) congress being
informed of a complaint.
Everyone forget what went on during the interrogation of the Acting DNI chief? The
constant hammering about why he did not immediately inform congress as the law demands?
Urgent and Credible was the statute level requirement.
The definition of Urgent and Credible is in the regulations written by the IC. Urgent
and credible required first hand knowledge. The change was needed for this particular
complaint to hit the higher classification level to trigger a mandatory reporting
to congress
The real problem is the ICIG has no jurisdiction over the White House and should have
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/1/2019 @ 8:39 amrecommended the WB go to the FBI or DoJ. (Except they have no mandatory reporting to congress
requirment.
In the same way that Big Media defaults to protecting and covering for Democrats, conservative media now defaults to protecting and covering for Trump. The question I have is, what happens after Trump? Where does conservative media go from there? Especially members who have gone to incredible lengths to (mis)represent Trump as someone other than who we know him to be.
Dana (05f22b) — 10/1/2019 @ 8:43 amI’m more upset that all the dictionaries changed the spelling of “discribe” and removed “liddle'” altogether just to embarrass Trump.
nk (dbc370) — 10/1/2019 @ 8:48 amThere aren’t many people I trust anymore. I trust Patterico.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/1/2019 @ 8:49 amAlthough I’m not in Patterico’s camp when it comes to a lot of things Trump, I appreciate the investigative reporting when things like this , which has been spread everywhere, is clarified with clear evidence showing it’s not true. And yes, those involved should issue corrections. Basic journalism decorum. To not do so minimizes their credibility going forward big time…at least with me. We all make mistakes, so no harm in fessing up to that, but sometimes journalists actually attempt to deceive from the get go which is why they may not issue a correction. Was this a case of that?
Regardless of your stripes on any issue, we need to strive for the truth. It’s hard to know if anything you see on any cable news channel is truth anymore because they all have their narratives they follow. Thanks Patterico for clearing this one up.
Ed (c9777a) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:08 am“LOL of course they didn’t. They are Trumpists, and Trumpists never apologize or admit error.“
Davis should admit to jumping to conclusions. I did too, so I’ll take the L on this.
That said, it was a claim that lasted less that a week and got no traction in the national news, as opposed to the ABC scoop that was retracted (and was relied on here in this blog).
It’s not as if an SC got appointed, spent two years investigating it while many in the media and on blogs cheering it on. Still no L taken on that.
Munroe (53beca) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:15 amOne, the IG just stated that some of the testimony was witnessed firsthand.
Paul Montagu (a882b9) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:27 amTwo, you’re wrong. Secondhand testimony can be found an “urgent concern” if the IG so judges after investigating the allegations, which is what happened.
I wonder when the whistleblower’s attorney will file a complaint for retaliation regarding Trump’s tweets.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:40 am7 read the standards for urgent and credible. Two requirements, one being first hand
knowledge.
While the claim of first hand knowledge is made by the IG. No first hand knowledge
is part of the WB complaint.
Not much faith in the IG. Assigned to the Intelligence community. His jurisdiction
covers the Intelligence community.
The White house is not the intelligence community. DoJ would have been the agency
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:44 amwith jurisdiction. Surpisingly no mandatory reporting rules cover that agency.
That means Schiff shoe horned this bit of fantasy into the IC. None of this matters
unless the media can get involved. This is all a PR operation. Nothing to do with oversight
The “change the rules” story was promoted by Trump, White House adviser Stephen Miller and GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. If that isn’t enough to consider it a prominent story, what does it take to be considered traction?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:45 amSo you must think the ICIG statement is incorrect, Iowan2. Can you provide a link that shows why it is incorrect?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:48 amIn 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.
So laws are written and then agencies write the rules to comply. So we play by the rules, until those rules don’t bring the result we want, so we change them.
bud (b48f3e) — 10/1/2019 @ 10:00 am“If that isn’t enough to consider it a prominent story, what does it take to be considered traction?”
DRJ (15874d) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:45 am
When Jason Leopard or Brian Ross reports on it.
If the form changing story turned out to be 100% true, it would still be buried. After all, wasn’t it “irrelevant”?
Munroe (53beca) — 10/1/2019 @ 10:01 amIt was buried, except for being reported far and wide, and promoted directly by the president. So you’re starting with a an assumption “Imagine a World” where reality doesn’t exist, and the things that you are seeing and reading are not happening. i.e. Trumpworld.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/1/2019 @ 10:20 amPlus Lindsey Graham and other GOP Senators.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/1/2019 @ 10:33 am@4 It’s not usually necessary to trust him. Typically he puts all the evidence needed to make your own conclusion in the post.
…I suppose you can trust him to provide all of the relevant information and update as new info becomes available.
Either way I enjoy the blog.
Time123 (457a1d) — 10/1/2019 @ 10:36 amMcintyre screen capped the images independently, they still used the old form.
Narciso (37bd1e) — 10/1/2019 @ 11:09 amTwitchy is on it:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/10/01/media-obscuring-and-lying-about-it-very-revealing-undercover-huber-sums-up-ig-whistleblower-form-controversy-in-eye-opening-thread/
Undercover Huber nails it.
D.GOOCH
GOOCH (d83d3a) — 10/1/2019 @ 11:46 amSean Davis is probably better suited covering the Kavanaugh beat for the NYT, where he could jack up the credibility.
Munroe (0aee87) — 10/1/2019 @ 11:54 amYou claim Huber nails it but he says he IG interpreted the statute to require firsthand knowledge. False. The IG statement says “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..” Desperate attempt to hold onto a crumbling narrative.
Patterico (8cb84e) — 10/1/2019 @ 12:55 pmIn the IG’s own words:
Sorry to disappoint, iowan, but I’ll take the word of a guy who handles whistleblower complaints as his profession over some pseudonymous guy on the Internet. This faltering attempt by Davis is another bulls**t claim by Trump and his minions that has blown up in their faces. Don’t get chumped by this. Also, the secondhand argument that the whistleblower relied solely on secondhand information is secondhand bulls**t.
Paul Montagu (e7d63b) — 10/1/2019 @ 1:43 pmyet he didn’t know who was on the call, or other significant facts, about the conversation, the fact that it was on a secure server, proves he didn’t have access:
https://saraacarter.com/when-did-pelosi-knew-about-the-content-of-trumps-call-with-ukraines-prez/
but this is typical of the misrepresentation of the national security division of justice, where Michael Atkinson hail from
narciso (d1f714) — 10/1/2019 @ 2:03 pmI like Ms. Carter’s subhead: “Taking back the story.”
Paul Montagu (e7d63b) — 10/1/2019 @ 2:07 pmBecause she’s all about trying to maintain Trump’s stories.
well they have covering with a pillow, jonathan winer’s apco connection to uranium one, (a real whistleblower, will campbell who risked his life and his health, but the (redacted) burr won’t give him the time of day, well that was isikoff’s second source, mccabes motive for retaliation re general Flynn, might have something to do with his amicus brief for robin gritz, the fact that james baker paid Stephan halper to talk up a number of trump aides, to keep this Russian snipe hunt going, but you won’t hear that from Bertrand, or isikoff or Ignatius, (who was a recipient of leaks)
narciso (d1f714) — 10/1/2019 @ 2:14 pmhttps://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/australia-and-ukraine-compare-and-contrast.php
narciso (d1f714) — 10/1/2019 @ 2:39 pmWell, reports are now surfacing that there was another whistleblower complaint filed on July 29, two weeks before this one, which was filed on August 12. Except this one didn’t involve the intelligence community so it didn’t have to go through the ICIG and the DNI before being forwarded to Congress. It was sent directly to the House Ways and Means committee, which is now investigating.
Chairman Neal informed Treasury Mnuchin in a letter the committee received an unsolicited communication from a Federal employee setting forth credible evidence of possible misconduct regarding inappropriate efforts to influence the mandatory annual IRS audit of the president and vice-president in an attempt to circumvent federal law. Details are sketchy, because Neal didn’t provide any, yet.
https://reason.com/2019/10/01/a-second-whistleblower-complaint-is-targeting-trumps-tax-returns/
Can’t wait to see the tweet storm about this whistleblower.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 10/1/2019 @ 4:39 pmThis is ridiculous.
Davis: The IG polices required first hand knowledge for WB, then CHANGED IT, in August 2019. Just in Time for The Trump hater to lie and spout 2nd hand gossip.
Sanchez: You Lie. The Law never required the 1st Hand Knowledge.
Patterico: Sanchez Wins!
All Sanchez did was prove something that NO ONE DISPUTED.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/1/2019 @ 5:39 pmThe CIA IG not only changed the form just in time for the Whistleblower to sell his 2nd hand gossip about Trump. We now know, he’s not some old CIA hand, but former DoJ lawyer who was mysteriously mixed up in all the FBI/Trump/Russia crap of 2016-2017. He sure was “enthusiastic” about getting this 2nd hand “orange man bad” gossip to Congress, wasn’t he?
I suspect we’ll find the CIA whistle-blower (WB) is a partisan D or “Life long Republican” who was a friend/subordinate of Brennan.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/1/2019 @ 5:48 pmThe Greatest Witch Hunt in the history of our country!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1179189266234167297
No second-rate witch hunts for our Donald. They’re the greatest! The hugest! The very best witch hunts!
nk (dbc370) — 10/1/2019 @ 6:09 pmThat is 100% false. How many times do I have to say this, rcocean? I said it twice in the post.
Repetition, bold, and italics all in the original post, right above this if you scroll up. And you missed it all.
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/1/2019 @ 6:10 pmAlso, in comment 20, which you didn’t read, I noted:
You are blatantly denying clear things right in front of your nose. For God’s sake, even Munroe acknowledges he was had here.
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/1/2019 @ 6:12 pmThis guy was who you were hoping for:
Narciso (a4d5d7) — 10/1/2019 @ 6:27 pmhttps://www.zerohedge.com/political/dead-deutsche-bankers-son-peddled-trump-financial-dirt-highest-bidder-adam-schiff
20: Pat, you rate the claim that the IG interpreted the statute as requiring first hand information as “false”. The evidence Huber cites to support the contention that the IG interpreted the statute this way is the form(s) itself: “But the DNI/ICIG *interpreted* the statute as requiring firsthand knowledge on at least some of the forms, even including specific guidance saying “ONLY” it would be allowed” and “The ICIG admits that the “whistleblower” used the May 2018 version of the form. That’s the **same form where the guidance notes explicitly state that firsthand knowledge is required**” – are you disputing either of these two assertions: that the form required first-hand information (stating only firsthand info would be allowed), and that the form used by the whistleblower was in fact this form? I want to be sure. The fact you cite in contradiction doesn’t have anything to do with what the form asserted – you instead cite the IG’s statement on their past rejections and what the basis for those rejections was. But we can reconcile those facts pretty easily. Perhaps the reason the ICIG hasn’t rejected a whistleblower complaint because it cited 2nd hand information is because *this is the first one* that they have received that did so, because folks who might have filled out whistleblower complaints based on 2nd hand info, read the form, and believed they could not submit one on that basis. Remember, the DNI claimed in testimony that the reason he had forwarded every whistleblower complaint prior to this one, despite the actual requirements, was that they had all been about members of the intelligence community. IOW, this particular complaint was a first – the first about someone outside of the intelligence community. Perhaps it is also the first (for this ICIG) to base its complaint on second hand information? And would it matter if, even if they have had a few based on second-hand information, that almost all of them are usually based on first-hand information? Irrespective of this particular kerfuffle, I know it would matter to me. And that sets aside the question of which is better evidence of their interpretation: the official form, with its assertions that only first-hand information is acceptable in black and white, or a practice where they may not have adhered to that statement? D.GOOCH
GOOCH (d83d3a) — 10/1/2019 @ 7:20 pmTry again:
https://www.hoover.org/research/ludicrous-impeachment-charge
Narciso (a4d5d7) — 10/1/2019 @ 7:24 pmhttps://magaimg.net/img/934p.jpg
“In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent
press inquiries, regarding the instant whistle blower complaint, the ICIG understood
that certain language on those forms, and more specifically the informational materials
on those forms, could be understood-incorrectly-as suggesting whistle blowers must posses first hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committee
So it is clear that the plain reading of the instruction on filling out the form clearly required first hand knowledge. This explanation is a hollow coverup of the form change, that allowed hearsay evidence to meet the two requirments for urgent, and credible. The second being, the complaint was something to do with the conduct of the intelligence community. The Presidents communication with foreign governments, is not under the intelligence community Inspector General.
Also, while the IG states the WB had first hand knowledge, the complaint is devoid of any firsthand knowledge.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/1/2019 @ 7:39 pmSo you read the classified appendix U Section IV? And you’ve read the IGIC’s public report completely refuting your fake conspiracy theory?
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/1/2019 @ 7:53 pmI think we should be more concerned which evil minions of Deep State changed the name of the hyphen to “apostrophe” when we weren’t looking. That is truly insidious and affects every American not just Trump.
nk (dbc370) — 10/1/2019 @ 8:28 pm36, Why does the IG hold some mystical air of truth and honesty? He took a complaint he knew he had no jurisdiction over. He should have directed the complaint to the DoJ… but we all know, without the complaint reaching congress, no televised hearings would be held, thus failing to provide Schiff a chance to fabicate narratives. This has nothing to do with impeachment, but yet another scam hoping to drive Presidents Poll numbers down (now higher that Obama’s at the same point of his presidency.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/1/2019 @ 8:31 pmTrump shouldn’t have hired him then.
Well, that’s just plain dumb, he absolutely 100% did.
Well, since it did go to the DoJ, you’re complaint is wrong on it’s face, and it’s completely inappropriate for it to go to DoJ, as they don’t actually have jurisdiction, at all. Based on those silly things called “laws”.
Well, it seems to have to do with impeachment, plus Trump’s poll numbers were circling the bowl before, the turd was getting flushed, but doing it now would allow someone mentally competent to run. Nikki Haley, we’re waiting.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/1/2019 @ 8:44 pmmr. president donald trump the president who is the president of the united states seems to think that it is about impeachment because he is calling it the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country instead of the greatest smear job in the history of our country which would still be the greatest even though a smear job and greatest is what really matters
nk (dbc370) — 10/1/2019 @ 8:54 pmSo if we hear something suspicious, like information about a terror attack, then we should report it to the government. But if a government employee hears something suspicious at work, they should not say anything. Because hearsay.
Isn’t that what you are saying, iowa2?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:00 pmExcept this wasnt an urgent matter, in facr examining contemporaneos foreign sources, this wasnt a matter at all.
Narciso (a4d5d7) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:08 pmAllahpundit had a great piece last night, smacking down the ridiculous “hearsay” argument.
In short, it’s freaking obvious, but once the cultists latch onto a new mantra, however fallacious, it takes on a life of its own.
Dave (1bb933) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:13 pmAfter three years of hearsay, driving first a fisa warrant then a special counsel, we know how mccabe and co handled real urgent matters like pulse and parkland
Narciso (a4d5d7) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:20 pm“But if a government employee hears something suspicious at work, they should not say anything. Because hearsay.”
DRJ (15874d) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:00 pm
They should only say something if it helps their preferred candidate, apparently.
Munroe (53beca) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:27 pmYes.
The form used by the whistleblower was the *old* form, first of all, so any change to the form is 100% totally irrelevant to the whistleblower’s complaint.
As for that old form, it allowed people to present “direct or indirect information”:
And while there was language suggesting that complaints based on secondhand information might not be deemed credible enough to pass on, there was *never* a requirement of firsthand information merely to *file* the complaint. Once the complaint was *filed* — which it *always* could be whether based on firsthand information or ninthhand information — then a preliminary investigation would be conducted to see if the complaint was credible enough to pass on. That occurred here and we won’t know precisely what was learned in the preliminary investigation but we know the whistleblower was interviewed, and based on the interview they decided the complaint was credible enough to pass on. Until the DNI and DoJ got involved.
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:51 pmIt didn’t say you couldn’t submit one with only secondhand information. It said it would not be credible enough to pass on if that was all there was after the preliminary investigation was done. The quote is “IG cannot transmit information” based on secondhand knowledge, not “you’re not allowed to file a complaint” if all you have is secondhand knowledge. You’re comflating filing and passing on the complaint to Congress.
Accept the L.
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/1/2019 @ 9:54 pmActually, under [National Security] Agency policy, whistleblowers have a duty to report wrongdoing. If this is a credible complaint, that means a number of government employees have put partisanship before their legal reporting duties.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/1/2019 @ 10:06 pmThis is ridiculous. ICIG Atkinson stated that the whistleblower did in fact have first-hand knowledge of improper conduct, suspicious behavior or questionable activity, such as abuse of office in an effort to circumvent constitutional law and federal statutes. He or she probably had first- and second-hand knowledge filed in the complaint, which the ICIG investigated and deemed serious and credible, and thus a matter of grave concern.
The complaint most likely wasn’t filed on the basis of a single phone call to Ukraine, but rather because of a conspicuous pattern of misconduct over months, perhaps more than a year. Look at the big picture and see what has transpired over the longer period of time.
Trump has his personal lawyer, Giuliani, both of whom have a long history in connection with corruption in the Ukraine, make several trips there to entice the newly elected president, Zelensky, into re-opening an investigation into corruption charges against Joe and Hunter Biden. Trump then withholds congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, without justification or explanation, and in the infamous phone call to Zelensky, asks for “a favor,” in a thinly veiled mob-like threat. Cooperate with my lawyer and the attorney general, Barr, or you won’t get the military aid you so desperately need now and in the future. As Cohen testified, Trump speaks in code–he doesn’t make direct threats, but the underlying message is implied.
Oh, wait, there’s more. All the while, Trump has been pressuring Australia, Italy and Britain to cooperate with Giuliani and Barr in their investigation into the sources of the Mueller report.
And all for what, to coerce foreign powers to provide false evidence in support of debunked conspiracy theories?
The problem with all this is that Giuliani is purporting act with the authority of the State Department, when he does not. He represents Trump’s interests, not those of the United States, and it is in fact illegal for him to negotiate with foreign leaders on behalf of the United States, especially. He is not a member of the administration or a government official.
The same is true for DNI Maguire. It is not his job to protect the president from a whistleblower complaint. It is his job, having received a complaint deemed a grave concern from the ICIG to forward it to the relevant congressional committees. By law, he “shall.” But Maguire didn’t do that, instead he referred it to the DOJ, so AG Barr could determine the complaint not a grave concern, or not applicable, thus not needing to be forwarded to Congress.
They tried to bury it, just as White House lawyers had tried to bury the phone call transcript or memorandum before, by hiding it on a top-secret server.
And what about Pompeo? He is the Secretary of State, but he just stands around impotently and lets others conduct foreign policy, and ineptly excuses and defends their misconduct and misbehavior.
Then there’s this other whistleblower complaint alleging improper influence to circumvent mandatory annual IRS audits of the president.
It’s corruption on all levels. Excuse the inexcusable, defend the indefensible,, that’s the Republican party now.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/condemn-trump-before-his-misconduct-becomes-norm/599155/
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 10/2/2019 @ 3:15 am“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..”
Did he have an opportunity to do reject one like that before this one came in?
Could this have been the first alleged urgent concern he received that did state first hand knowledge? (others that lacked first hand knowledge would not have been filed because of the form.)
here are errors in the complaint. It states that Donald Trump praised Yuriy Lusenko and stated that Zelensky might want to keep him in his position.
Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd) — 10/2/2019 @ 3:25 amAfter three years of this dossier foolishness, basta ya (thats enough) if there is a whistleblower name him or her and their title, if there is an omb document list it so one can prove. But this jury rigged star chamber has got to stop.
Narciso (a4d5d7) — 10/2/2019 @ 6:00 am39. quoting Well, since it did go to the DoJ, you’re complaint is wrong on it’s face, and it’s completely inappropriate for it to go to DoJ, as they don’t actually have jurisdiction, at all. Based on those silly things called “laws”.
This is from the DoJ. citing law and precedent. The IG is, and was fully aware he was outside his jurisdiction.
Again, the entire operation was conceived and implemented with the outcome, televised hearings, with the intent of driving down President Trump poll numbers.
President Trump ruined their plan, by releasing the phone call, and then the next day releasing the complaint. Dems knew for positive, the President was NEVER going to make public information that is whithout a doubt protected by executive privilege. That would give the dems lots of air time to accuse the president of an un-identifiable crime, AND obstruction of justice. This obstruction was supposed to take coup plotters, at least to the Thanksgiving recess.
One final fact. I will believe the President is a guilty, and should be impeached, as soon as the Democrats believe it. As of yet, the Democrats don’t see a problem of enough substance to vote on starting impeachment proceeding.
Our conclusion that the “urgent concern” requirement is inapplicable does not mean
that the DNI or the ICIG must leave such allegations unaddressed. To the contrary, the ICIG
statute, 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(6), makes clear that the ICIG remains subject to 28 U.S.C. § 535,
which broadly requires reporting to the Attorney General of “[a]ny information, allegation,
matter, or complaint witnessed, discovered, or received in a department or agency … relating to
violations of Federal criminal law involving Government officers and employees.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 535(b). Accordingly, should the DNI or the ICIG receive a credible complaint of alleged
criminal conduct that does not involve an “urgent concern,” the appropriate action is to refer the
matter to the Department of Justice, rather than to report to the intelligence committees under
section 3033(k)(5). Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 535, the ICIG’s letter and the attached
complaint have been referred to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice for
appropriate review.
Accordingly, should the DNI or the ICIG receive a credible complaint of alleged
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/2/2019 @ 6:30 amcriminal conduct that does not involve an “urgent concern,” the appropriate action is to refer the
matter to the Department of Justice
One, the IG didn’t send it to DOJ, Acting DNI Maquire did, which was in conflict with the law. The word “shall” means something.
Paul Montagu (f74687) — 10/2/2019 @ 7:07 amTwo, the IG acknowledged the whistleblower’s intentions and found the complaint credible despite acknowledged intentions.
The ig came from the national security division
Narciso (e7ef48) — 10/2/2019 @ 7:14 amPaul, read the law. I cut and paste it from the DoJ. Then I bolded the salient part, that quotes the law that requires the IG to forward to the DoJ
From the law,“Our conclusion that the “urgent concern” requirement is inapplicable does not mean
that the DNI or the ICIG must leave such allegations unaddressed.
So, according to statute, Urgent concern requirements were NOT fulfilled, and the complaint did not involve the operations of the intelligence community, nor identified wrong doing by intelligence community personnel. conclusion? Not the jurisdiction of the ICIG, proper handling as laid out in statute…forward to the DoJ
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/2/2019 @ 7:19 am@46 – I agree that the change to the form is irrelevant with respect to the state of mind of the WB in filing the WB claim – as the WB used the old form. But I wouldn’t say the change is per se irrelevant to this argument, as I understand it, since the argument is that the form was changed for post hoc political reasons – closing the barn door after the horse got out, with the hope of pretending the barn door was always shut. On that question, it is clearly relevant – indeed, it is classic “consciousness of guilt” evidence.
Now we come to the question of how the old form, the one the WB used, treated second-hand information. So for you, the key factual error Sean made was in suggesting the form required 1st hand info to “file the complaint” rather than set out the standard by which evidence submitted would be judged credible enough to move forward with. The form used the term “process” in discussing second-hand information: “If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.” IOW, the form stated, in essence, that a complaint that only presented second-hand information would be a dead letter. It would not be a advanced as an official whistleblower complaint. So even accepting your distinction between “file a complaint” versus “file a complaint that will be processed as an ICWPA”…why does that distinction matter (except in terms of showing that Sean was inaccurate in his phrasing, and thus isn’t “totally vindicated”)? Why couldn’t Sean Davis say something to the effect of, “you’re right, the form didn’t say you couldn’t file the complaint on 2nd hand info, rather, it suggested it would be a waste of time to do, since there would have to be 1st hand info in order to ‘process’ the complaint and move it forward as an actual whistleblower complaint”? Why couldn’t he do that and still advance all of the arguments regarding the WB complaint that he is advancing, but most importantly, the argument that the form was changed to lend post hoc legitimacy to a decision to advance a complaint that shouldn’t have been advanced, under the original IGIC interpretation of the standard for advancing complaints? I think Sean could reasonably argue that “file a complaint” implied “file a credible complaint that the IGIC should take seriously and move forward” and not the literal reading of “submit the paperwork and have it read.” But either way, if he accepts your correction, what relevant argument does it relate to? How does this fact undermine the Trump defender attack on the IGIC for advancing the complaint as a credible ICWPA?
Now, you note the original form has the person filing the complaint identify as a “discloser” with either “direct or indirect evidence.” But direct/indirect isn’t synonymous with first-hand/second-hand evidence. You can have first-hand knowledge of indirect (i.e. circumstantial) evidence. Further, even if we allow that indirect subsumes second-hand evidence, since the form explicitly states that a complaint based only on second-hand evidence is insufficient, the specific trumps the general, don’t you think?
So I think there is pretty clear evidence that the IGIC policy, in implementing the whistleblower statute, based on the original form, the one this WB used, was to discourage complaints based on second-hand information. It did so by telling those who filled out the form that their complaint would not be processed if that’s all it relied upon. The form clearly stated it was the policy of the IGIC not to “process” complaints that relied only on second-hand information.
Now, it may be correct to argue that this policy was inconsistent with the statute, that in practice the IGIC did not enforce this policy, or that, in fact, the WB did present first-hand information, it is simply redacted from the published information (although, as Undercover Huber argues, that is an unlikely scenario), or that it should have been the IGIC policy to process complaints based on second-hand information, given this is a preliminary determination. But on this one point, I think the media Trump defenders have a point. The post hoc changing of the form suggests to me what it suggests to them – that the IGIC realized, after the WB complaint became a media sensation, that their determination that the complaint was credible was inconsistent with the WB complaint form, and so they changed the form. If not, I’d like to hear a reasonable explanation as to why they would change the form, and change it in this way, contemporaneous to this media story, for some other sensible reason. The statute didn’t change. Why did they change the form? D.GOOCH
GOOCH (d83d3a) — 10/2/2019 @ 7:54 amYou didn’t cite the law, you cited OLC opinion, an opinion that should never have been made. The law states that the DNI shall submit a complaint of “urgent concern” to Congress within seven days, not run it through the DOJ first. The OLC is led by a handpicked Trump appointee. Giving it over to them, thus opening the door to stonewalling, is a subversion of the whistleblower process.
Paul Montagu (f74687) — 10/2/2019 @ 7:57 amThe ICIG is the one who decides if the complaint is an “urgent concern” within 14 days of receipt, not the DNI and not Barr. The DNI shall forward the complaint to Congress, and may attach his own comments and documents, within seven days. That is the law, iowan.
Oh, and ICIG is not bound by OLC opinion.
Because this story highlights the fact that the form could be read in a way that makes it inconsistent with the law and with the way they have applied the law in every single case in which a form was processed under this ICIG. So they changed the form to make sure it comports with the law and their practice.
That’s not just a “reasonable” explanation. I’m convinced it’s the actual explanation.
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/2/2019 @ 8:08 am@58 Yeah, I see that, but it has to be correcting a mistake that the ICIG made in creating the form in the first place, if it is to be a correction. It was either an intentional distortion or unintentional mistake, if the statute requires advancing second-hand ICWPAs otherwise deemed credible. But if it was a mistake, then it strongly suggests the mistake was in the interpretation of the statute, and that the form-creator was under the impression that the WB statute required, as a pass-over bar, 1st hand based claims in order to process them as ICWPA. Stating explicitly in your form that you will not process a complaint exclusively based on second-hand information – I mean, there is a whole paragraph on it – is straightforward and clear. We aren’t talking about an ambiguous word or two that is being tendentiously read to give it an unintended or dual meaning. Someone either thought that was right – or they lied.
So reasonable scenarios more sympathetic to the ICIG than the Trump Defenders have advanced are available, but they do not wholly exonerate the ICIG from error. Perhaps the form was originally designed to be inconsistent with the law (presuming we agree the law unambiguously permits the advancement of ICWPA complaints to be exclusively based on second hand info and they understood that to be the case), but consistent with a policy preference to only vet credible claims, and that they realized it was a liability to have done so once the media focused on the process of advancing the WB complaint by the ICIG as an ICWPA. In this scenario, it was a ‘white lie’ to ensure the universe of complaints fielded by the office had a modicum of credibility. Or, maybe it was a legit interpretation of the statute and they originally intended to circular file second-hand complaints, but later decided that was wrong, and so they deliberately did not enforce that provision. Or perhaps the office believed the statute was ambiguous as to the bar for credible complaints, ant that they had the discretion under the statute to set their own bar of credibility and did so – that then changed at some point, but the form did not and was outdated – so they corrected it once attention was brought to it.
Or maybe the Trump defenders are right, and this is post hoc rationalization of a decision that was inconsistent with their prior stance on the requirements of the statute, as evidenced in the form.
No way to know absent evidence on the creation of the form, or specific evidence on the creation of the policy or how it evolved. But I don’t see how you innocently include that language in the form and simultaneously believe the WB statute permits second-hand based complaints to be advanced as ICWPAs. If you do, you’re lying on the form. If they didn’t believe the statute permitted it (or that they had discretion to say either way on the implementation side), then it is correct to say that the ICIG changed its interpretation of the statute, and hence its policy on processing ICWPA complaints. YMMV on whether the best inference is the sympathetic or skeptical take as to why they did that.
Donald Gooch (3b3c3d) — 10/2/2019 @ 9:36 amD.GOOCH
57. There is no person operating out of the executive branch that is not bound by OLC rulings.The Attorney General is the superior officer. The AG is a constitutional position.
I am shocked you could find someone on the internet that agrees with your view.
What is your protection from a corrupt IG? You seem to grant him rule with no checks in his limitless power.
The OLC opinion is citing from the statute. You have failed to contradict the legal reasoning used to support their ruling.
The ICIG ignored the rules that limit his actions. Limit his veview to person under the supervision of the DNI. Or responding to possible corruption, or malfeasance of the Intelligence community.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/2/2019 @ 9:44 amThe ICIG failed to meet both of those statutory standards. As the OLC correctly states, the proper ICIG action should have been to forward the WB complaint to the DoJ. That you don’t like the AG has no bearing on law.
The DNI and AG are both cabinet-level positions, equal in stature and with both directors reporting directly to the president The ICIG reports to the DNI, not the AG, and the ICIG has his own legal counsel.
Paul Montagu (f74687) — 10/2/2019 @ 9:53 amThis is basic org chart stuff, iowan.
You’re on perma-wrong. Donnie Jr. is that you? It would be on brand.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/2/2019 @ 9:56 amAlso there’s the small thing that the admin released the notes on the call, which align 100% with what the WB complaint says.
So the facts are not in question, you’re problem seems to be that the facts make Cheeto jeezus look like a two bit criminal, which is also on brand, everything about Trump is two bit.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/2/2019 @ 10:55 amAdam Schiff probably got involved in writing the whistleblower complaint which he later complained later hadn’t been forwarded to him
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/whistleblower-tipped-off-schiff-before-filing-official-complaint-report
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/2/2019 @ 12:10 pmConflicts of interpretation of the WB statute rest with OLC That means the AG and OLC have the final word. The final word has been handed down.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/2/2019 @ 12:37 pmThe acting Director did take the complaint to the agencies lawyers, and they forwarded it to the AG and OLC, to get the matter decided.
https://www.justice.gov/olc/page/file/1205151/download
This is the link to the OLC opinion. It’s binding, and the ICIG agrees with the opinion.
63. Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/2/2019 @ 10:55 am
I don’t think so.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html Go down to the top of page 3 in the New York Times web publication of the complaint:
Now that’s not in the call at all.
This statement in the whistleblower complaint probably helped account for confusion at the New York Times, for they wrote near the end of their Note 4 (which is much shorter online thasn in the printed paper on pages A24 and A25 of the septemeber 27, 2019 issue, but this excerpt is in both) :
Now everybody who looks at thsi independently understands Trump to have been referring to Viktor Shokin, supposedly fired because of Joe Biden. And Giuliani says that Lutsenko is the bad prosecutor whom Biden put in.
And it also can’t be Lutsenko that Trump is referring to because Lutsenko didn’t officially resign until August, so he probably couldn’tbe said to be shut down yet:
https://112.international/politics/prosecutor-general-of-ukraine-to-file-resignation-letter-when-parliament-starts-working-42408.html
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/2/2019 @ 12:38 pmSee, thsi is wat happened:
Adam Schiff’s committee staff probably helped write the whistleblower complaint and put into it that Trump was trying to keep Lutsenko. (this is possibly because they were working on a theory that Lutsenko was Giuliani’s source, but he probably wasn’t)
Als, And nobody understands what Trump was talking about with Crowdstrike and the server, except whatever it is, it’s probably a big lie.
This is like Twin Peaks, remember.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/2/2019 @ 12:40 pmYou have to wonder if Adam Schiff knows who were Giuliani’s sources in Ukraine and is trying to hide it.
By the way, I think Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky didn’t understand maybe half of what Donald Trump was saying, but he pretended to because he wanted to be on his good side.
So when Trump mentions something about a prosecutor who was gottten rid of he thinks that Trump is talking about Lutsenko, ignores the fact that Trump sid agood prosecutor was shut down, and remembers he wants to tell Trump he will now put in a good prosecutor.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/2/2019 @ 12:47 pmNew Yrl Daily News leaps to teh defense f Adam Schiff, claiming Trump has no evidenxe:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-trump-evidence-schiff-helped-whistleblower-complaint-20191002-vd5l2luegrd4tlm7gg4dh7uakm-story.html
He’s right, that’s what the word is. It’s an idea that’s been circulating around for aweek or so. Rush Limbaugh said it. I don’t know what he based it on, but it seems like the WB was in contact with the House Intelligence committee. That may be actually a fully legitimate thing to do, but it sets the stage for wondering if there was more, especially since Schiff is intellectually dishonest.
So you can wonder if he had the complaint before it was submitted and even if his staff wrote some of the substance of the complaint, especially what is wrong in it, especially because of the political use being made of it.
Now, that idea needs to be checked out. But to attack someone for merely voicing the idea?? Especially since Schiff kit seems, doesn’t want anybody to know whom the WB talked to, who were his sources. Especially since we have the precedent of the msde up attacks against Brett Kavanaugh, and the manipulaton of the process. It’s not out of the question.
It might be the whistleboower got help, and ideas, but it could also be that it might not have been anyone associated with the committee who helped the whistleblower compose his accusations. Even if you have the idea right – that the complaint was acolective effort – the details might be wrong.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/2/2019 @ 1:28 pmWhy would this CIA officer go to a staffer for Schiff?
A CIA officer. A CIA officer, didn’t know to go to the IC IG? Didn’t know how to suss out a whistle blower complaint form? A CIA officer didn’t know what to do with third hand gossip?
Sure this is believable
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/2/2019 @ 2:38 pmwe only have his word, he’s a company operative, he seems to be ignorant of most everything going on in the Caucasus, so there is that,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/2/2019 @ 2:54 pmDonald J Trump, Cheeto jeezus, and the White House released the call summary, which says what the complaint said it would say, so your trouble is with finding out about the act, not the act.
Trump’s actions are the problem.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/2/2019 @ 3:18 pm72. Yes, because evidence suggests Schiff, found a person to expose classified information, and then coach a person to write a whistle blower complaint using second and third had information. After we know the Obama administration used spies to infiltrate the Presidential campaign, submit lies to get FISA warrants, issue untold number of national security letters. Consider wearing a wire when talking to the President, it is relevent when more manufactured lies are being used attempting to overturn an election.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/2/2019 @ 3:50 pmYou’re making that up. What actually happened is that the Acting DNI consulted WH Counsel, and then he took it to OLC, led by Barr, who is named in the complaint. Both parties, the WH Counsel and Barr, are infected by Trump’s taint. Instead of just going with “shall”, the Acting DNI went the other way, wrongly.
Paul Montagu (f74687) — 10/2/2019 @ 3:56 pmThere is no evidence of that, good story though.
Individually those are all words, as assembled, not true in any way.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/2/2019 @ 3:56 pmHa! you said Trump’s taint. That, is a perfect name for a Trumpster.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/2/2019 @ 3:58 pmCan we dispense with the lie that President Trump was asking for dirt on sloe Joe? The call never says that. What President Trump asked for was help with the investigation into the predicate for the whole fake counter intell investigation.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/2/2019 @ 3:59 pmThere is nothing that would have triggered a counter intell action. That is what Barr is investigating
yes they used Stefan halper paying through a dia proprietary, downer, ostensibly Australian, worked for the british security contractor haklyut of course the mysterious miss turk
https://www.heritage.org/node/23043/print-display
this is where Jamie raskin comes from,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/2/2019 @ 3:59 pmBecause it’s not a lie. Trump’s favor was to ask for Zelensky to investigate wrongdoing by Biden, not rightdoing. He wasn’t doing it out of any concern for Ukrainian corruption, because the only “corruption” he ever talked about in that country involved Biden.
Paul Montagu (f74687) — 10/2/2019 @ 4:12 pmto continue with the investigation, that the kyev post had admitted had started the month before, try to keep up montagu, of course, hunter is small beer, compared with cofer black, he ran interference for zylochevsky, in higher circles,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/2/2019 @ 4:15 pmWhy would we? Trump’s released call summary confirms it, and Trump’s mouth (last week, this weekend, this afternoon), and his tweeter thumbs. Plus Rudytooti too.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/2/2019 @ 4:17 pm