Based on the 2019 complaint, the primary whistleblower regarding President Trump’s call with Ukraine's leader did not have firsthand knowledge of the conversation, relying instead on information from multiple government officials. However, the Intelligence Community Inspector General deemed the complaint "credible" and "urgent".
*Initial Complaint: The initial whistleblower, a CIA officer detailed to the White House, indicated in their formal complaint that they were not a direct witness to the call, according to the PBS report on the complaint.
*Corroboration: While the initial report was based on second-hand information, its core allegations were later corroborated by a White House-released memorandum of the call and testimony from officials who were present.
*Second Whistleblower: Shortly after the initial complaint, a second whistleblower came forward, who was a member of the intelligence community with firsthand knowledge of some of the allegations.
*Legality of Second-Hand Reports: The National Whistleblower Center notes that, generally, whistleblowers are not required to have first-hand information.
In September 2019, the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) revised its "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form to remove a requirement that whistleblowers have first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing.
Key Aspects of the Form Revision:
*Previous Requirement: Prior to the update, the form (approved in May 2018) included a section titled "First-Hand Information Required," stating that the ICIG could not transmit information via the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) based on an employee's second-hand knowledge.
*The Change: The revised form, noted as updated in August 2019, removed this requirement, instead allowing for second-hand information by asking if the complainant had "direct and personal knowledge" or "heard about it from others".
*Timing: The revision occurred shortly before the submission of the complaint that triggered the 2019 impeachment of President Donald Trump, which was largely based on second-hand information.
ICIG and Legal Response:
*ICIG Statement: The ICIG stated that the change was made in response to media inquiries and that "certain language in those forms... could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess firsthand information".
*Legal Interpretation: The ICIG stated that the law does not require first-hand information for a complaint to be considered credible, and therefore the ICIG cannot add that condition.
*Controversy: Critics, including members of Congress, argued that removing the first-hand knowledge requirement diluted the credibility standards for whistleblowers.
While some reports initially stated the form was changed to bypass the first-hand rule, the ICIG maintained that the whistleblower in the Trump case actually submitted their complaint on the older version of the form, though the guidance and form materials were updated around the same time.
RecentWTF happened to the WTF h... by alum74
WTF is up with this Clown... by Reacher
Total Members: 142