Intel Community Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01...new-questions/

So the ICIG changed the form so he could investigate it. Conspiracy to overthrow the President.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday. While many in the media falsely claimed the ICIG’s stunning admission debunked The Federalist’s report, the admission from the ICIG completely affirmed the reporting on the secretive change to whistleblower rules following the filing of an anti-Trump complaint in August.

The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. The Federalist reported last week that it was not known which form, if any, the complainant used, as the complaint that was declassified and released to the public last week was written as a letter to the two chairmen of the congressional intelligence committees.

Under the law governing whistleblower complaints for members of the intelligence community, the inspector general has near-total authority to determine whether a complaint is credible or not. The law is silent on what type of evidence is required and leaves that decision entirely to the discretion of the inspector general. As a result, the internal policies set by the ICIG’s office are the regulatory rules governing the examination of whistleblower complaints. Because of this wide discretion granted under the law, the ICIG’s internal changes to its own policies and guidance regarding firsthand evidence — which the ICIG admitted to in its press release on Monday — directly impacted its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint filed in August.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01...new-questions/

So the ICIG changed the form so he could investigate it. Conspiracy to overthrow the President.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday. While many in the media falsely claimed the ICIG’s stunning admission debunked The Federalist’s report, the admission from the ICIG completely affirmed the reporting on the secretive change to whistleblower rules following the filing of an anti-Trump complaint in August.

The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. The Federalist reported last week that it was not known which form, if any, the complainant used, as the complaint that was declassified and released to the public last week was written as a letter to the two chairmen of the congressional intelligence committees.

Under the law governing whistleblower complaints for members of the intelligence community, the inspector general has near-total authority to determine whether a complaint is credible or not. The law is silent on what type of evidence is required and leaves that decision entirely to the discretion of the inspector general. As a result, the internal policies set by the ICIG’s office are the regulatory rules governing the examination of whistleblower complaints. Because of this wide discretion granted under the law, the ICIG’s internal changes to its own policies and guidance regarding firsthand evidence — which the ICIG admitted to in its press release on Monday — directly impacted its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint filed in August. Originally Posted by gnadfly

^^^^^^^^^^

Yep wtf likes those fat males.....

Thank you gif queen

Do yourself a favor and put WhatTheCuck on ignore.

“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” Michael Atkinson, the ICIG, wrote.
“I decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible,’” he stated.


"Michael Atkinson, the ICIG, is slated to testify under oath before the House Intelligence Committee later this week."


BAHHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA


the ICIG directly reports to the DNI. now we know why the DNI did not find this credible .. because it isn't.

this is all beginning to fall apart before it even gets started ... notice that no vote has been taken yet for a formal impeachment proceeding. if this "complaint" was so damning as Schitthead Schiff says then what's the wait?

this farce will blow up in the Democrat's faces and there will be no impeachment.

“

this farce will blow up in the Democrat's faces and there will be no impeachment. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Changing the form doesn't change the law behind it.

"On its face, it makes little sense for an IG to refuse secondhand information at the initial stage because an IG, like a prosecutor or a journalist, is looking for leads, not merely for admissible evidence. Both versions of the form allowed for the submission of secondhand information, as provided in the guiding policy documents. The older form merely had a stronger warning that the tip would need to be verified by the IG before it could be deemed credible, perhaps to discourage complaints from people soon to be terminated or disciplined.

In a lengthy statement rebutting the Federalist’s reporting, the IG’s office said that the Ukraine whistleblower relied on the 2018 form, not the new online form:

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.
The statement also provided this detail:

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.”
The Pinocchio Test
The original report in the Federalist focused on a change in the form, suggesting it was somehow related to the recent whistleblower case. There is no evidence that is correct.
In any case, the IG’s process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the 2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations were credible and that Congress should be notified.

The president seized on reports on the form to falsely claim the rules for whistleblowers were changed just before the whistleblower’s report was submitted in August. That’s false and worthy of Four Pinocchios."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ently-changed/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01...new-questions/

So the ICIG changed the form so he could investigate it. Conspiracy to overthrow the President.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday. While many in the media falsely claimed the ICIG’s stunning admission debunked The Federalist’s report, the admission from the ICIG completely affirmed the reporting on the secretive change to whistleblower rules following the filing of an anti-Trump complaint in August.

The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. The Federalist reported last week that it was not known which form, if any, the complainant used, as the complaint that was declassified and released to the public last week was written as a letter to the two chairmen of the congressional intelligence committees.

Under the law governing whistleblower complaints for members of the intelligence community, the inspector general has near-total authority to determine whether a complaint is credible or not. The law is silent on what type of evidence is required and leaves that decision entirely to the discretion of the inspector general. As a result, the internal policies set by the ICIG’s office are the regulatory rules governing the examination of whistleblower complaints. Because of this wide discretion granted under the law, the ICIG’s internal changes to its own policies and guidance regarding firsthand evidence — which the ICIG admitted to in its press release on Monday — directly impacted its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint filed in August. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Changing the form doesn't change the law behind it.

"On its face, it makes little sense for an IG to refuse secondhand information at the initial stage because an IG, like a prosecutor or a journalist, is looking for leads, not merely for admissible evidence. Both versions of the form allowed for the submission of secondhand information, as provided in the guiding policy documents. The older form merely had a stronger warning that the tip would need to be verified by the IG before it could be deemed credible, perhaps to discourage complaints from people soon to be terminated or disciplined.

In a lengthy statement rebutting the Federalist’s reporting, the IG’s office said that the Ukraine whistleblower relied on the 2018 form, not the new online form:

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.
The statement also provided this detail:

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.”
The Pinocchio Test
The original report in the Federalist focused on a change in the form, suggesting it was somehow related to the recent whistleblower case. There is no evidence that is correct.
In any case, the IG’s process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the 2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations were credible and that Congress should be notified.

The president seized on reports on the form to falsely claim the rules for whistleblowers were changed just before the whistleblower’s report was submitted in August. That’s false and worthy of Four Pinocchios."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ently-changed/
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Bullshit! Fuck your equivocation. The IC IG has already admitted that it changed its rules to facilitate this whistleblower.

Heretofore, the IC had a standing rule that whistleblowers have first hand knowledge of the incidents they are reporting --- regardless of what the law required. Hearsay is inadmissible in a court of law!

Bullshit! Fuck your equivocation. The IC IG has already admitted that it changed its rules to facilitate this whistleblower.

Heretofore, the IC had a standing rule that whistleblowers have first hand knowledge of the incidents they are reporting --- regardless of what the law required. Hearsay is inadmissible in a court of law! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Be careful with you cursing. you remember Lollipop Hankering washed your mouth out with Rufus Hankerings Ebonics soap. lollipop sure was rough when she was crammed that "soap" down your throat. Putin gave you, trump and the world a shout out about the 2016 election. you boys are a joke

Changing the form doesn't change the law behind it.


the law behind it does not lay out the scope. the ICIG does. do you deny that it was changed .. after Trump took office? and i question when it was changed. there seems to be some discrepancy on the forms about dates ..


"On its face, it makes little sense for an IG to refuse secondhand information at the initial stage because an IG, like a prosecutor or a journalist, is looking for leads, not merely for admissible evidence. Both versions of the form allowed for the submission of secondhand information, as provided in the guiding policy documents. The older form merely had a stronger warning that the tip would need to be verified by the IG before it could be deemed credible, perhaps to discourage complaints from people soon to be terminated or disciplined.

In a lengthy statement rebutting the Federalist’s reporting, the IG’s office said that the Ukraine whistleblower relied on the 2018 form, not the new online form:

it was changed, after being the same for a decade as the WaPost states that. the real question is ... why was it changed?


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.
The statement also provided this detail:

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.”
The Pinocchio Test
The original report in the Federalist focused on a change in the form, suggesting it was somehow related to the recent whistleblower case. There is no evidence that is correct.
In any case, the IG’s process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the 2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations were credible and that Congress should be notified.

The president seized on reports on the form to falsely claim the rules for whistleblowers were changed just before the whistleblower’s report was submitted in August. That’s false and worthy of Four Pinocchios."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ently-changed/




Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

it remains unproved if the whistleblower had direct knowledge of anything and the facts outlined by the complaint have been shown to be inaccurate.


let's see if any of the "sources" are willing to come forward and testify. i'm betting they won't. this means the one complainant has his .. or her .. ass flapping in the wind, farting what they claim happened. the people who were there know what was said. i say the info comes from someone with access to the secure server that the transcript was stored on. which is a violation of security protocols and why they need a patsy to file the complaint.

and about that secure server. due to leaks Trump has been storing transcripts of his calls with foreign leaders on it for several years, which destroys the Dem narrative that it was "suddenly" hidden to keep it private.


and let's also remember that this is a US government secure server, unlike Clinton's "homebrew" server which was poorly secured and as Trump said even a fat kid in his basement could hack. do you think none of the many foreign intel services didn't hack it? they did but i don't think you'll see any info from it for one reason ...

CLINTON LOST. If she hadn't it would have been leaked by now.


BAHHAHHAAA

Be careful with you cursing. you remember Lollipop Hankering washed your mouth out with Rufus Hankerings Ebonics soap. lollipop sure was rough when she was crammed that "soap" down your throat. Putin gave you, trump and the world a shout out about the 2016 election. you boys are a joke Originally Posted by themystic

Here's racist Moscow Mystic's disparaging 'Ebonics'.

How racist of you, Moscow Mystic.

Stalin and Putin would be proud of you, Moscow Mystic.

Falling apart? Like your argument?

"In any case, the IG’s process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the 2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations were credible and that Congress should be notified."



So how stupid do those attorneys feel for wasting all that time and money on those advanced degrees? When you know it all from blogs (HS)?

“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” Michael Atkinson, the ICIG, wrote.
[B]“I decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible,’” he stated.[/B] You don't read your own posts?


"Michael Atkinson, the ICIG, is slated to testify under oath before the House Intelligence Committee later this week."


BAHHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA


the ICIG directly reports to the DNI. now we know why the DNI did not find this credible .. because it isn't.No, we don't know why. Can't wait for his testimony.

this is all beginning to fall apart before it even gets started ... notice that no vote has been taken yet for a formal impeachment proceeding. if this "complaint" was so damning as Schitthead Schiff says then what's the wait?

this farce will blow up in the Democrat's faces and there will be no impeachment. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Looks like your take is warped as usual.
This is so important it has to take the time to do it right.

Besides, trump will meltdown before the end of this process. Every day trump alienates swing voters. How far in the future is trump's stroke(and certainly not a stroke of genius)?

Read much? The info is right in front of you.
It clearly states first-hand knowledge isn't needed.

I wouldn't even post it other than to show you're full of shit.
You're a trumpy. Opinionated and uneducated.

Like I can change that. Or would even try.

it remains unproved if the whistleblower had direct knowledge of anything and the facts outlined by the complaint have been shown to be inaccurate.


let's see if any of the "sources" are willing to come forward and testify. i'm betting they won't. this means the one complainant has his .. or her .. ass flapping in the wind, farting what they claim happened. the people who were there know what was said. i say the info comes from someone with access to the secure server that the transcript was stored on. which is a violation of security protocols and why they need a patsy to file the complaint.

and about that secure server. due to leaks Trump has been storing transcripts of his calls with foreign leaders on it for several years, which destroys the Dem narrative that it was "suddenly" hidden to keep it private.


and let's also remember that this is a US government secure server, unlike Clinton's "homebrew" server which was poorly secured and as Trump said even a fat kid in his basement could hack. do you think none of the many foreign intel services didn't hack it? they did but i don't think you'll see any info from it for one reason ...

CLINTON LOST. If she hadn't it would have been leaked by now.


BAHHAHHAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Falling apart? Like your argument?

"In any case, the IG’s process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the 2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations were credible and that Congress should be notified."



So how stupid do those attorneys feel for wasting all that time and money on those advanced degrees? When you know it all from blogs (HS)?



Looks like your take is warped as usual.
This is so important it has to take the time to do it right.

Besides, trump will meltdown before the end of this process. Every day trump alienates swing voters. How far in the future is trump's stroke(and certainly not a stroke of genius)?

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Virtually unchanged ... it was changed .. and the liberal mess .. er press claim May 2018. ara .. ya gonna go against your own link? unwise that ..


so why was it changed at all? why allow non-first hand complaints? that means anyone could file a report with ZERO first hand knowledge which is exactly what this crap is.


and let's see how many swing voters this bitch alienates ...

Virtually unchanged ... it was changed .. and the liberal mess .. er press claim May 2018. ara .. ya gonna go against your own link? unwise that ..


so why was it changed at all? why allow non-first hand complaints? that means anyone could file a report with ZERO first hand knowledge which is exactly what this crap is Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

+1

Per Politifact, masterdickmuncher's favorite source, firsthand knowledge was REQUIRED:

"In order to find an urgent concern ‘credible,’ the IC IG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA (Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act) based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA."