Pushing back against the Trump cabal

Excerpts:

The law required that the Complainant be “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.” 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). The ICIG confirmed the Complainant was such an employee, detailee, or contractor.

The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respect to an “urgent concern,” which is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the 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.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant alleged information with respect to such an alleged urgent concern.

At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the following language:

In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA 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. [...] 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.

 [...] 

The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. 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 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.”

As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute.  Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations.

 [...] 

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.

Full statement

Impeach.

UPDATE:

The conspiracy theory about the complaint form discussed

From Donald Trump on down, prominent Republicans used part of their weekend to falsely accuse Trump’s hand-picked intelligence community inspector general (IC IG) of secretly changing the requirements for intelligence workers to submit whistleblower tips as part of a “deep state” plot to clear the way for the Aug. 12 complaint about Trump’s phone call to the president of Ukraine.

The smoking gun in the putative conspiracy is an obscure government form, IC IG ICWSP Form 401, also known as the Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form.

[...]

According to the GOP and an army of conservative commentators, the old version of the form prohibited workers from submitting urgent complaints based on secondhand information. [...] That changed in early August, the false claim goes, when ICIG Michael Atkinson snuck through a hasty revision to the complaint form that reversed longstanding policy.

[...]

“It seems like they are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, the regulatory framework, and the language on one form,” said Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

The kernel of fact near the center of the conspiracy theory is that there is, indeed, a new version of Form 401 dated August 2019.

A question on the form explicitly anticipates tips based on secondhand information, and asks the whistleblower to check a box: “I have direct and personal knowledge,” or, “I heard about it from others.” The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story.

What the article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018, making it impossible that it was added as an easement for Trump’s whistleblower. The major difference in the fields is that the old form includes three options instead of two, subdividing secondhand sources into outside source and “other employees.”

[...]

The requirement for firsthand whistleblowing only is completely made up.

[...]

The Federalist and supporters of the Atkinson smear also point to a two-page information sheet distributed as part of the May 2018 version of the form but not the August 2019 version. It’s unclear when it was dropped, but a paragraph in that now-excised preamble was headed, “First-Hand Information Required,” seemingly contradicting the form itself. “In order to find an ‘urgent’ concern credible, the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information,” the text read in part. “The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.”

Though the text is confusingly drafted—which may be why the entire preamble was canned—a careful reading shows it’s not erecting a new hurdle for filing a whistleblower complaint, but rather describing the type of evidence the IC IG has to gather to judge the complaint “credible” at the end of its 14-day investigation.

“It’s an explanation of the IG’s standard for assessing credibility,” said Sanchez in an interview with The Daily Beast. “The IG isn’t going to forward it to the DNI if it can’t corroborate secondhand or indirect information. The whistleblower’s job is not to investigate. That is the job of the IG.”

[...]

“Complainant was not a direct witness to President’s telephone call with the Ukrainian President on July 25, 2019,” the IC IG wrote on Aug. 26. “Other information obtained during the preliminary review, however, supports the Complainant’s allegation."

[...]

In other words, Trump’s whistleblower didn’t go through some shady “deep state” backdoor. He or she followed the process, and government investigators found the firsthand evidence themselves.

On September 27, The Federalist's Sean Davis falsely claimed that until recently, intelligence community whistleblowers were required to have “first-hand knowledge” of wrongdoing in order to have a complaint investigated. This claim, which has since been debunked as untrue, is based on an obscure government form that conservatives are claiming was recently changed when Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson reversed policy to allow secondhand information as the basis of a complaint. In fact, the statute that governs the process for intelligence community members to file whistleblower complaints has never included a firsthand knowledge requirement.

[...]

The debunked  claim has been pushed on Fox News at least five times since September 27.

  Media Matters

And, look who's pushing it:



Nice response to Trump's tweet:

The conspiracy theory was promoted by the president, Republican members of Congress, and a slew of right-wing media personalities. On Monday, Fox News continued to push the claim as a primary talking point.

On the September 27 edition of Hannity, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow claimed that “the form that so-called whistleblowers fill out” used to require firsthand information and “that was on the form literally until apparently very recently.”

Of course, it's Hannity and the Fox & Friends people who are pushing this angle heavily. And those are the Fox shows Trumpalos tune in to.

In his [Federalist] 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.

According to Davis, a form available in May contains language suggesting complainants must have firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing to file an “urgent concern” complaint -- the type of complaint filed by the Ukraine whistleblower -- but that the form was revised at some point to remove that language. (But according to a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, the likely explanation for the change was that the information in the previous form was inaccurate on the issue of firsthand knowledge and was therefore updated.)

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).

[...]

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.

  Media Matters

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  He's still at it.