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.
The 1st paragraph: the instructions for the form clearly indicate that firsthand information is required for a "credible" and "urgent" complaint. The complainant should have been notified and the IC IG should not have acted on the complaint.
The Initial complaint: correct.
Corroboration: what are the "core allegations" ? Are they even relevant ? This paragraph is worthless as is.
Second whistleblower: the transcripts mention 1 whistleblower existing, not 2. This may refer to the 2nd witness who read a transcript or memorandum and shared with Atkinson that no election, either 2016 or 2020, was mentioned.
Legality of Second-Hand Reports: a 2020 book pushing article irrelevant with respect to the May 24, 2018 form that was used.
In Sept 2019 paragraph. The Atkinson updated version is dated August 2019. There is no specific date in August listed. Probably just an oversight.
Previous Requirement: correct.
The Change: irrelevant.
Timing: the revision is not dated as to a day in August that preceded the submission and digital signature date. Saying that the revision occured before the complaint submission has no support. Nonetheless, the form used was the 2018 form.
IC IG statement: media had access to the only form that was available, the May 2018 form, and began asking questions. The Atkinson change to the whistleblower complaint form allegedly occured sometime in August. It's not known when but the 2018 form was used and signed.
Legal Interpretation: the Inspector General of the Intelligence Committee sat in front of members of Congress and told them that the law written by members of Congress was not legal so he decided to ignore it. Uh, ok.
Maybe Atkinson can answer how he viewed a dozen or more whistleblower complaints that had previously come before him in his federal referral.
Controversy: Critics, including members of Congress, argued that the law written by members of Congress should be debated in Congress before an IC IG can just ignore it.
The last paragraph: even though the whistleblower used the old form the form was "updated around the same time." smh
Disclaimer: I used no AI in this.
RecentWTF happened to the WTF h... by Somewhere in Mn
The PGA Tour/Golf thread by Judge Judy
No New Wars! Well, maybe ... by ThePAMan
Total Members: 142