,
20 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
ICIG Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions thefederalist.com/2019/10/01/int…
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.
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.
Under the law on whistle blower complaints for members of the intelligence community, the IG 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 inspector gen
. As a result, the internal policies set by the ICIG’s office are the regulatory rules governing the examination of whistleblower complaints.
In its press release, the ICIG also explicitly admitted it changed its policies because of the anti-Trump complaint, raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint
Because the complaint did not allege wrongdoing against a member of the intelligence community (the president of the United States is an elected constitutional officer, not an employee of a statutory agency), did not allege wrongdoing with regard to an intelligence activity...
....(a phone call between two elected world leaders is basic diplomacy, not the execution of a statutorily required intelligence activity), and relied primarily on hearsay rather than firsthand evidence, ....
...both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the anti-Trump complaint was not an “urgent concern”
In spite of those determinations, the ICIG on its own and after revising its internal guidance and policies regarding firsthand evidence decided the complaint did qualify as an “urgent concern” and forwarded the anti-Trump complaint to Congress.
The ICIG did not inform the DNI of the existence of the anti-Trump complaint until Aug. 26 and did not inform Congress of the complaint until Sept. 9. On Sept. 13, the DNI informed Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, ...
....that the complaint did not meet the statutory definition of an “urgent concern” and would therefore not be shared with Congress. The complaint was formally declassified by the president for release to the public on Sept. 25.
The complaint released last week, which Democrats are using as the basis for impeachment proceedings against the president, is riddled not with evidence directly viewed by the complainant, but repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant:
In fact, the ICIG admitted in its Aug. 26 letter to the DNI that its office never even reviewed the transcript of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky prior to determining whether the complainants hearsay allegations about the phone call were credible.
“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.
Although the ICIG stated in its Monday press release that the complainant claimed on his whistleblower form to be in possession of firsthand evidence of criminality by Trump, the complaint released to the public contains no such firsthand evidence.
A congressional official told The Federalist on Monday that the House Intelligence Committee has not received the underlying whistleblower complaint form submitted by the anti-Trump complainant.
Michael Atkinson, the ICIG, is slated to testify under oath before the House Intelligence Committee later this week.
