Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > US Congress & The Legislative Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

US Congress & The Legislative Branch Discuss Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge at the Political Forums; Despite the public availability of the President's Ukrainian phone call transcript and the joint press conference with both principle participants ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-30-2019, 02:15 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,682
Thanks: 11,010
Thanked 11,627 Times in 6,922 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

Despite the public availability of the President's Ukrainian phone call transcript and the joint press conference with both principle participants denying the main allegation of the whistleblower's complaint the processing of the complaint is an issue of extreme interest for Democrats. But overlooked in the Democrat hyperbole claiming the complaint was suppressed is the rule change that no longer limited complaints to first hand knowledge of the whistleblower.

Quote:
The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.
The complaint, based on second hand information and media stories is dated August 12, 2019. There is no way to determine if the rule was changed after the complaint against Trump, someone outside the intelligence community, was filed. Without the rule change the complaint wouldn't have been accepted. With the change intelligence bureaucrats have been given unfettered access to accuse the POTUS of impeachable acts with no direct knowledge of the act. Flipping the selection of the President from the electorate to the whim of the bureaucracy truely undercuts the Constitution.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27...wer-knowledge/
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-30-2019, 02:39 PM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,634
Thanks: 6,805
Thanked 4,580 Times in 2,610 Posts
Default Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

What are the odds that the any of the investigations in the House will bring this up?
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-30-2019, 04:44 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 81,125
Thanks: 55,374
Thanked 26,240 Times in 18,773 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Despite the public availability of the President's Ukrainian phone call transcript and the joint press conference with both principle participants denying the main allegation of the whistleblower's complaint the processing of the complaint is an issue of extreme interest for Democrats. But overlooked in the Democrat hyperbole claiming the complaint was suppressed is the rule change that no longer limited complaints to first hand knowledge of the whistleblower.



The complaint, based on second hand information and media stories is dated August 12, 2019. There is no way to determine if the rule was changed after the complaint against Trump, someone outside the intelligence community, was filed. Without the rule change the complaint wouldn't have been accepted. With the change intelligence bureaucrats have been given unfettered access to accuse the POTUS of impeachable acts with no direct knowledge of the act. Flipping the selection of the President from the electorate to the whim of the bureaucracy truely undercuts the Constitution.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27...wer-knowledge/
Quote:
In his article, Davis wrote that “between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings” and that said action “raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior” surrounding the complaint. Davis attempted to support his claim by citing forms available to the intelligence community to assist potential whistleblowers in filing complaints.

...

To be clear, Davis’ claim that there was a firsthand knowledge requirement for filing a complaint is false. It simply does not exist in the statute that lays out the requirements of a successful “urgent concern” report. The controlling statute is 50 U.S. Code § 3033(k)(5)(G), which lays out the following requirements, none of which are firsthand knowledge:

(G) In this paragraph, the term “urgent concern” means any of the following:

(i) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of 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.

(ii) A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.

(iii) An action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B) of this section in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern in accordance with this paragraph.
Quote:
Another way to see that there is no such requirement is to look at an opinion issued by Trump’s Department of Justice that attempted to push back against a determination by the inspector general for the intelligence community that the whistleblower complaint did indeed qualify as an “urgent concern.” On September 24, the Office of Legal Counsel -- a DOJ entity that “provides legal advice to the President and all executive branch agencies” -- issued an 11-page complaint detailing arguments against the determination. Notably, there is no discussion of a firsthand knowledge requirement. If there was, the OLC opinion would undoubtedly have simply stated that the complaint was prima facie inadequate for “urgent concern” status.
...

Quote:
It is also important to keep in mind that despite numerous attempts by right-wing media to discredit the complaint because it is “hearsay,” that argument has been largely rendered moot as the central allegation of complaint -- that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden -- has been corroborated. The fact that the “transcript” of the call released by the White House lines up with the central allegation of the complaint makes it immaterial how exactly the whistleblower learned of Trump’s actions, because the whistleblower accurately described them. The credibility of the complaint, which also alleged that the Trump administration moved the Ukraine call transcript into a highly classified computer system, is also bolstered by the White House’s acknowledgement that it did take that action.
Quote:
Although the issue of firsthand versus secondhand knowledge is moot, Davis also tried to undermine the whistleblower complaint by mischaracterizing what exactly the whistleblower alleged. In his article, Davis writes that “the complainant acknowledged he was ‘not a direct witness’ to the wrongdoing he claims Trump committed.” Not so. Here is what the relevant line from the complaint says (emphasis added): “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.” That suggests the complainant does have some firsthand knowledge.
__________________
Trump’s only true skill is the con...~Serwer|The Atlantic
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2019, 10:44 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,682
Thanks: 11,010
Thanked 11,627 Times in 6,922 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
...
The meta data for the form shows the change to the requirement from first hand information only to office gossip or imagination took place in August the same month the whistleblower, leaker political tract was submitted. Instead, the rules were changed to accommodate the leader's political diatribe.

Naturally the leaker claiming to have first hand knowledge of some of the events cannot be challenged because no distinction is made between first and second hand information presented.

Somehow news media articles, third hand at best, are now allowable for whistleblower complaints.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
community, firsthand, gutted, intel, knowledge, requirement, secretly, whistleblower

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0