Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 01, 2019

For more than a week before it received a formal referral from the intelligence community inspector general, the Justice Department was aware of the concerns being raised about President Trump's July 25 Ukraine call, reporting by the New York Times and elsewhere has revealed.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It goes to show how the normal processes for reporting government impropriety are ill-equipped to handle misconduct accusations brought against the president of the United States.
Trump's actions are so far beyond what anyone ever thought that a sitting President might do in service of his own interests that our laws are simply inadequate to deal with him.

With the complete consent of the DOJ there is no other federal law enforcement entity with the power to hold him accountable outside of the constitutionally prescribed impeachment process.

So here we are.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-30 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Has it been explained why the IC changed the firsthand knowledge requirement for a whistle-blower filing a complaint?

Also, there is this:

Kenneth P. Vogel
""
@kenvogel
The Ukrainians weren't made aware that the assistance was being delayed/reviewed until more than one month after the call.
twitter.com ...

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-30 03:36 PM | Reply

Truth is, under William Barr, we don't have a Justice Dept. We have a Trump defense team.'

Here Jeff, let me help you by posting the contents of that twitter so everyone will read it:

"The call makes no sense. Why would the $400 million in withheld critically-needed military aid not be the top priority of the call? It's inexplicable. The only rational explanation is President Zelensky understood it was being used as leverage."

#3 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-30 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"our laws are simply inadequate to deal with him (Trump)"

Sociopaths seek advantage, not justice.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-30 03:51 PM | Reply

the IC changed the firsthand knowledge requirement for a whistle-blower filing a complaint

1. Nothing in the statute requires firsthand knowledge, so any previous form stating to the contrary was false.

2. If your beef with secondhand knowledge is that it tends to be less reiable, then you need to deal with the fact that Trump's own call memo verifies the "secondhand" information at issue, thus negating any reliability concerns.

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-30 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Has it been explained why the IC changed the firsthand knowledge requirement for a whistle-blower filing a complaint?

Where did you get that BS from? Read the PPD, there is no such requirement:

PRESIDENTIAL POLICY DIRECTIVE/PPD-19
SUBJECT: Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to Classified Information

This Presidential Policy Directive ensures that employees (1) serving in the Intelligence Community or (2) who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse.

To ensure the timely and effective implementation of the goals of this directive, I hereby direct that the following actions be taken:

www.dni.gov

The original statute can be found here - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-103/pdf/STATUTE-103-Pg16.pdf - and there's no mention of how the information at question is brought to the attention of the whistleblower.

That is why the process includes not one, but TWO high-ranking intelligence appointees of the President himself investigating any claims made by whistleblowers and if supported by evidence and testimony, provide independent confirmation PRIOR to any complaint being forwarded to Congress.

I can't believe you're pushing Trump's "firsthand" stupidity. Whistleblowing leads to investigations of the allegations, not convictions without trials.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-30 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"2. If your beef with secondhand knowledge is that it tends to be less reiable, then you need to deal with the fact that Trump's own call memo verifies the "secondhand" information at issue, thus negating any reliability concerns.

#5 | POSTED BY JOE "

You're a lawyer, right? What does the law say about hearsay? Then why are you defending it?

#7 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-30 04:44 PM | Reply

What does the law say about hearsay?

That it cannot, subject to 30+ exceptions, be used in court proceedings (which a whistleblower complaint is not).

why are you defending it?

Saying that the secondhand information in the complaint is verified by the White House's own firsthand account of the call is not a defense of hearsay.

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-30 05:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The "memo' is first hand. Trump did it. You know it, cause he told the nation he did it.

#9 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-09-30 05:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#2

Experts were quick to point out that whistleblowers have always been allowed to report on secondhand information.

The inspector general's statement Monday echoed that, saying, although their form "requests information" about whether a whistleblower has firsthand knowledge, there is no "requirement" to have such knowledge to file a complaint.

"In fact, by law the Complainant... need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern," the statement read.

It also said the whistleblower, in this case, claimed on the form to have "both first-hand and other information."

www.huffpost.com

#10 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-30 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Zachary Cohen @ZcohenCNN

News: IC IG has posted a statement regarding its handling of whistleblower complaints.

"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 ..."

www.dni.gov

"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 ..." the statement says.

I'd encourage folks to read the full statement but it's clear the IC IG is forcefully pushing back on assertions by the President and some Republicans about the lack of first hand knowledge and rules regarding how whistleblower complaints are processed.

twitter.com

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-30 09:26 PM | Reply

One month before the "complaint" was filed, the CIA changed the form from requiring first hand information to accepting solely hearsay. Anyone thinking this is a coincidence is mentally challenged. The Deep State is -------- their pants over Trump investigating the 2016 Russia Hoax - that is why there is an all out blitz to discredit Barr.

Of course, the Dems are so damn dumb and easy to manipulate, they are stuck on the latest 'scandal', but anyone with any intelligence knows that a CIA "whistle-blower" NOT whistle-blowing on the CIA is a PLANT. The truth is going to wreck the Dems. So, bring on impeachment! I call your bluff.

#12 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-01 07:29 AM | Reply

One month before the "complaint" was filed, the CIA changed the form from requiring first hand information to accepting solely hearsay. Anyone thinking this is a coincidence is mentally challenged. The Deep State is -------- their pants over Trump investigating the 2016 Russia Hoax - that is why there is an all out blitz to discredit Barr.

Inspector General Tears Down Trump's Lies

The intelligence community Inspector General has issued a rare public statement which confirms that notorious liar Donald Trump is lying about the whistleblower in the Ukrain scandal. The IG stated that despite Trump's assertion that the whistleblower has no first hand knowledge that the whistleblower possesses both first-hand and other information. The IG also denied a media claim that the intelligence community recently changed the whistleblower rules and that removed a requirement of "direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings" and stated no such requirement has ever existed.

drudge.com

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community's Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

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. 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.

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."


www.dni.gov

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-01 09:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Intelligence community watchdog debunks whistleblower conspiracy pushed by Trump and other Republicans

The statement does state that three new forms have been made available on the inspector general's website as a part of a months-long process. Those forms were developed because the previous versions, including the one used by the whistleblower, "could be read -- incorrectly -- as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees."

www.cnn.com

#14 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-01 09:43 AM | Reply

"The IG stated that despite Trump's assertion that the whistleblower has no first hand knowledge that the whistleblower possesses both first-hand and other information. The IG also denied a media claim that the intelligence community recently changed the whistleblower rules and that removed a requirement of "direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings" and stated no such requirement has ever existed."

Total ass covering at this point for the Intelligence Community - their reckoning was a long time in the making.

This might have some validity if not for this ---- statement straight from the complaint:

"I was not a direct witness to most of the events described"

or, this beauty:

"Inspector General Michael Atkinson's letter sent on Aug. 26 to the director of national intelligence asserted that "the Complainant's letter acknowledges that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President's telephone call"

As to firsthand information:

"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." The old form went into effect in May 2018.

So in summary, NO FIRSTHAND INFORMATION AND THE FORM WAS CHANGED, conveniently 1 month before the complaint. Dems don't find that fishy, just like a $50K/month no-show job in Ukraine is not fishy.

#15 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-01 11:31 AM | Reply

"I was not a direct witness to most of the events described" -- Ira

To me the pertinent word is "most", which means that he/she was a direct witness to some of it. The call as noted in the second quote was obviously something they did not witness personally. Honestly you are proven wrong so much on this site it is amazing you keep returning to have your nose pushed in it.

#16 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-10-01 12:26 PM | Reply

"So in summary, NO FIRSTHAND INFORMATION AND THE FORM WAS CHANGED, conveniently 1 month before the complaint."

From ICIG's most recent letter, emphasis mine:

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. 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.

#17 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-01 02:20 PM | Reply

They don't require firsthand info in order to file a complaint but until now hearsay complaints were simply tossed (based upon what I've read about this) as a means of keeping WB complaints to a manageable level for the IG to investigate.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-01 02:25 PM | Reply

So we can put Jeff squarely in the "waahhhh you shouldn't have found out about how corrupt we are" camp.

Anyone else care to join him?

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-01 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So we can put Jeff squarely in the "waahhhh you shouldn't have found out about how corrupt we are" camp.

What makes you think that?

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-01 02:40 PM | Reply

Because you've been implying for 24 hours that this complaint should not have even been considered?

And it goes along with your laughable objections to the Carter Page FISA warrant?

Taken together, it's clear you have no defense for what Trump does so you've resorted to attacking the process by which others have found out about it.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-01 02:44 PM | Reply

"you've resorted to attacking the process by which others have found out about it."

You had no right to discover my wrongs!

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-01 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because you've been implying for 24 hours that this complaint should not have even been considered?

All I did was ask about the reasoning for the rule change. You are reading WAY too much into that.

And it goes along with your laughable objections to the Carter Page FISA warrant?

I haven't made any objections to the Carter Page FISA warrant. I've been very clear about that. The IG investigated it and a report has been produced and is being redacted for public consumption. I'll draw my conclusions regarding the Carter Page FISA warrants once I see the report.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-01 02:52 PM | Reply

I distinctly recall you posting tenuous theories about those warrants and being corrected by myself and others. If that wasn't you, my mistake.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-01 03:07 PM | Reply

I distinctly recall you posting tenuous theories about those warrants and being corrected by myself and others. If that wasn't you, my mistake.

#24 | POSTED BY JOE

It wasn't me. Honestly, I think it's highly unlikely they were obtained illegally and I hope that is what the IG uncovered - that they were on the up-and-up.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-01 03:11 PM | Reply

Ok. My bad, Jeff.

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-01 04:08 PM | Reply

They don't require firsthand info in order to file a complaint but until now hearsay complaints were simply tossed (based upon what I've read about this) as a means of keeping WB complaints to a manageable level for the IG to investigate.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ

I haven't read that anywhere but let's say it's true. It doesn't sound like a "rule" more like a discretion of the IG - investigate or not. Keeping in mind the IG is a Trump appointee - it must have struck that person as particularly egregious to look into it or struck a cord with an actual patriot. And as we all know with the Trump presidency we are in uncharted waters. So why would anything surprise us?

I'm not going to say other people wouldn't actually do something like this but they wouldn't be so stupid as to do it openly and directly on a phone call. They would have established "back channels", plausible deniability, etc... I don't put anything past people seeking to be President or achieving it today. Just saying.

#27 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-10-01 04:23 PM | Reply

#18 Please read the last sentence in #17, which is a quote from the ICIG's recent letter.

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-01 05:52 PM | Reply

Very interesting.....
A Little-Known, Clinton-Approved Treaty Lets Ukraine Help US Investigate Criminal Cases:
www.westernjournal.com

#29 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-10-01 06:17 PM | Reply

You're a lawyer, right? What does the law say about hearsay? Then why are you defending it?

#7 | Posted by goatman

If the cops get a call from someone saying they WERE TOLD there's a body buried under a bridge, should the cops go look under the bridge or should they just ignore it because it's HEARSAY?

Another day, another example of "nonpartisan" goat parroting the con man's pathetic talking points.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-01 06:23 PM | Reply

www.westernjournal.com

#29 | Posted by MSgt

I love when righties reveal the places they get their news. No wonder they're so deluded they'd elect a reality tv show con man.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-01 06:24 PM | Reply

"You're a lawyer, right? What does the law say about hearsay?"

Interesting question.
Is hearsay admissible during impeachment, like it is in immigration court?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-01 06:42 PM | Reply

"You're a lawyer, right? What does the law say about hearsay? Then why are you defending it?
#7 | POSTED BY GOATMAN"

That it's almost always admissible at trial. Also, it is used all the time as the basis to investigate a reported crime. "Officer, my neighbors told me that Goatmam broke into my garage and stole my collection of 1960s Playboys. His next door neighbor just texted me and said he has the magazines in his fort in his backyard right now!" "Sorry, sir, that there is what we call hearsay. I can't investigate someone based on hearsay, now can I?"

From "Goatmam's World, the Adventures of a Internet Lawyer"

#33 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2019-10-01 07:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"From "Goatmam's World, the Adventures of a Internet Lawyer"

POSTED BY MONTECORE "

I asked a question. You respond with your third troll in an hour.

If you are going to emulate a poster, there are better options than Pincheloaf.

And again -- we'll be in touch if a stalker position opens LOL

#34 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-01 07:16 PM | Reply

Anytime goatman gets his ass whooped, he calls the victor a stalker.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-01 07:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Anytime goatman gets his ass whooped, he calls the victor a stalker.

#35 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

No, I only call a stalker a stalker -- like the guy who followed me to three different threads with nothing but insults an nothing on topic.

But yeah, you being a name caller with little substance, I see why you view that as a victory. LOL

#36 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-01 07:48 PM | Reply

I'll ask again:
Is hearsay admissible during impeachment, like it is in immigration court?

It is, isn't it?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-01 08:04 PM | Reply

"What does the law say about hearsay? Then why are you defending it?
#7 | POSTED BY GOATMAN"

"I asked a question.
#34 | POSTED BY GOATMAN"

You did a little more than that. (See, e.g., "Then why are you defending it?") You asked a question, presumed the answer (wrongly), and tried to put Joe on the spot based on your misunderstanding of the law.

#38 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2019-10-01 08:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So in summary, NO FIRSTHAND INFORMATION AND THE FORM WAS CHANGED, conveniently 1 month before the complaint. Dems don't find that fishy, just like a $50K/month no-show job in Ukraine is not fishy.

#15 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

Obviously you only watch Fox News.

1. The Whistleblower used both FIRST and SECOND hand knowledge in the complaint.
2. No Form, current or former, requires Firsthand knowledge. The current form you refer to ONLY has a place for the Whistleblower to mark if the knowledge is Firsthand or Secondhand.
3. The Whistleblower marked that he had Firsthand knowledge on the complaint form he/she submitted.
4. The ICIG determined after investigation that the Complaintant had FirstHand knowledge which goes to whether the Complaint can be marked as Urgent.

Ira, once again you come out as uniformed and useless. Google in not that hard. Try it sometime rather than simply watching Fox News.

#39 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-10-02 02:57 PM | Reply

It cracks me up how yall that identify as Democrats love whistleblowers now. The right, however, has at least been consistent in their hatred of whistleblowers.

See:Snowden, manning, et al

#40 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-10-02 10:35 PM | Reply

#38 | Posted by mOntecOre

Be careful or GOATMAN will start calling you "MONTEBORE" (sic) again like he used to. Nowadays, he whines and calls others 'childish,' conveniently forgetting his own past. A past we clearly remember. He's back to the same old games, just minus the nicknames. Oh, and the "*sigh*" every other post.

And can you believe and NULLI (formerly called "DULLIBOY" by GOATMAN before his ban) are now bosom buddies since NULLI went full right winger? "Mr Independent" loves him some right wingers! But not this country so much. Not a word about the awful things Trump does. Nope.

No doubt he'll be talking behind my back, knowing I have him plonked. That's the kind of man he is.

#41 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 02:33 AM | Reply

"Be careful or GOATMAN will start calling you "MONTEBORE" (sic) again like he used to. Nowadays, he whines and calls others 'childish,' conveniently forgetting his own past. A past we clearly remember. He's back to the same old games, just minus the nicknames. Oh, and the "*sigh*" every other post.
And can you believe and NULLI (formerly called "DULLIBOY" by GOATMAN before his ban) are now bosom buddies since NULLI went full right winger? "Mr Independent" loves him some right wingers! But not this country so much. Not a word about the awful things Trump does. Nope.
No doubt he'll be talking behind my back, knowing I have him plonked. That's the kind of man he is.

POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY "

Obsessed.

#42 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-03 02:39 AM | Reply

1. The Whistleblower used both FIRST and SECOND hand knowledge in the complaint. - Sycophant

I read the complaint in its entirety. Not a single time did the whistle blower cite himself as personally witnessing anything. It was "sources informed me..." every single time.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I read the complaint in its entirety. Not a single time did the whistle blower cite himself as personally witnessing anything. It was "sources informed me..." every single time."

Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Releases Statement on Whistleblower Complaint

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.

www.lawfareblog.com

#44 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 03:26 PM | Reply

"I read the complaint in its entirety. Not a single time did the whistle blower cite himself as personally witnessing anything. It was "sources informed me..." every single time."

^
How JeffJ And The Rest Of The Deplorables Are Poised to Stifle Whistleblower's Complaint

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-03 03:33 PM | Reply

#45 Um, wrong. Per usual.

although the Complainant's Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President's July 25, 2019, telephone call...

Which is exactly what I said. I was clearing up a factual error made by Sycophant. Nothing more.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 03:49 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort