https://www.scribd.com/document/427580035/50-USC-3033-Inspector-General-of-the-Intelligence-Community

50 USC § 3033 (k)(5)(G)

Links to 50 USC § 3033 (complete)

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-50/chapter-44/subchapter-i/sec.-3033/

https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/us/2016/title-50/chapter-44/subchapter-i/sec.-3033/sec.-3033.pdf?ts=1568437195 [PDF]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote of 50 USC § 3033 (k)(5)(G), the specific provision cited within the IC "Whistleblower" Complaint at page 1.

2016 US Code
Title 50 - War and National Defense
Chapter 44 - National Security
Subchapter I - Coordination for National Security
Sec. 3033 - Inspector General of the Intelligence Community

50 U.S.C. § 3033 (2016)

§3033. Inspector General of the Intelligence Community

[...]

(k) Reports

[...]

(5) (A) An 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 who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with re­spect to an urgent concern may report such complaint or information to the Inspector Gen­eral.

[...]

(G) In this paragraph, the term ‘‘urgent con­cern'' means any of the following:

(i) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, vio­lation of 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.

(ii) A false statement to Congress, or a will­ful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, adminis­tration, or operation of an intelligence activ­ity.

(iii) An action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, con­stituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohib­ited under subsection (g)(3)(B) of this section in response to an employee's reporting an ur­gent concern in accordance with this para­graph.

The "Whistleblower's" sources of information:

At 1:

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that

more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts

I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible

I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order” that “does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters,” consistent with the definition of an “urgent concern” in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(G). I am therefore fulfilling my duty to report this information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities.

At 2:

I do not know which side initiated the call.

Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that

The White House officials who told me this information

At 3:

I was told by White House officials that

Based on my understanding

I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call.

In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call.

Based on my understanding

I learned from multiple U.S. officials that

the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced—as is customary—by the White House Situation Room.

White House officials told me that

At 4:

Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me by various U.S. officials

I also learned from multiple U.S. officials that

multiple U.S. officials told me that

I do not know whether those officials met or spoke with Mr. Giuliani, but I was told separately by multiple U.S. officials

On 9 August, the President told reporters:

Beginning in late March 2019, a series of articles appeared in an online publication called The Hill. In these articles, several Ukrainian officials—most notably, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko—made a series of allegations against other Ukrainian officials and current and former U.S. officials. Mr. Lutsenko and his colleagues alleged, inter alia:

At 5:

In several public comments, Mr. Lutsenko also stated that

At 6:

It was also publicly reported that

I learned from U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation that

I also learned from a U.S. official that

several U.S. officials told me that

On 9 May, The New York Times reported that

At 7:

Starting in mid-May, I heard from multiple U.S. officials that

These officials also told me:

multiple U.S. officials told me that

This was the general understanding of the state of affairs as conveyed to me by U.S. officials

it was publicly reported that

On 13 June, the President told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that

On 21 June, Mr. Giuliani tweeted:

In mid-July, I learned of a sudden change of policy with respect to U.S. assistance for Ukraine. See Enclosure for additional information.

At 8:

According to multiple White House officials I spoke with

According to information I received from White House officials, some officials voiced concerns

According to White House officials I spoke with,

I learned from U.S. officials that,

At 9:

According to these officials, it was also “made clear” to them that

I do not know how this guidance was communicated, or by whom.

an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official informed Departments and Agencies that

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/whistleblower-urgent-concern-complaint-released-house-intel-committee

"I Was Not A Witness To Any Of It" - 'Whistleblower' Complaint Released To Public

by Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/26/2019 - 08:45

Update (0910ET): President Trump has quickly responded:

THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND ALL THAT IT STANDS FOR. STICK TOGETHER, PLAY THEIR GAME, AND FIGHT HARD REPUBLICANS. OUR COUNTRY IS AT STAKE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2019

* * *

The House Intel Committee has released the full (modestly redacted) complaint letter from the so-called 'Whistleblower' regarding Trump's "urgently concerning" conversations with Ukraine.

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election."

...

"Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort."

...

"I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order" that "does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters,"

So to the crimes and misdemeanours...

The Ukrainian side was the first to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of 25 July, a readout was posted on the website of the Ukrainian President that contained the following line (translation from original Russian-language readout):

"Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine's image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States."

Well that doesn't exactly sound "deeply concerning"? But there's more...

"Aside from the above-mentioned "cases" purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House officials that no other "cases" were discussed."

Oh so other people confirmed that Trump did not seek more, but the 'whistleblower' claims calls and documents were "locked down" - in some nefarious manner?

"In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior WhiteHouse officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the phone call, especially the House officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced—as is customary—by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call."

"White House officials told me that they were ’directed’ by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which the transcripts are typically stored"

And here's the "smoking gun"...

"During this same timeframe, multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to "play ball" on the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani. (Note: This was the general understanding of the state of affairs as conveyed to me by U.S. officials from late May into early July. I do not know who delivered this message to the Ukrainian leadership, or when.)

Shortly after President Zelenskyy's inauguration, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani met with two other Ukrainian officials: Ukraine's Special Anticorruption Prosecutor, Mr. Nazar Kholodnytskyy, and a former Ukrainian diplomat named Andriy Telizhenko. Both Mr. Kholodnytskyy and Mr. Telizhenko are allies of Mr. Lutsenko and made similar allegations in the above-mentioned series of articles in The Hill."

The entire note reads like a journalist or lawyer wrote it, and citing NYTimes numerous times lends it even less credibility.

Simply put, some folks told some other folks about administration folks that might be talking to some Ukrainian folks?

Perhaps the most interesting part is the following...

"I was not a witness to most of the events described... However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible..."

Perhaps he would better named a "gossip-blower"

Sounds like the whistle blower is part of a treasonous coup.

It appears to me that she(?) is not a whistleblower at all. It appears obvious on its face that the Complaint does not qualify as an "urgent concern," and the Intel IG acted wrongfully to say it did. Trump's phone call was not an intelligence operation. As the Inteligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) does not apply, it is not a valid whistleblower complaint and she(?) ain't entitled to any protection as a whistleblower.

If the "whistleblower's" claims are to be believed, the phone conversation was office gossip that everyone was talking about. Just because you and I hypothetically carry Top Secret clearances does not mean we can swap stories. There is that requirement of need to know.

This invididual stated at page 3,

In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced—as is customary—by the White House Situation Room.

The transcript that was produced, and was not challenged by the Democrats, contains on its first page:

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written fore as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation.

The word "inaudible" is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

It would appear to be the error of a CIA Officer and associated attorneys to wrongly ascribe the customary practice of the White House Situation Room. There does not appear to be any word-for-word transcript or the Dems would be screaming for it.

This crap should lead to a prosecution. This nothing but a massive leak pretending to be a whistleblower complaint. It is like the Russiagate or Kavanaugh crap, with new wrapping paper and a pretty bow on it.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1177206661603348480.html

Fred Fleitz
@FredFleitz

1/ As a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders, here are my thoughts on the whistleblower complaint which was just released. . .

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf

2/ This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction over these calls.

3/ It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call.

3/ The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?

4/ It is therefore important that Congress find out where this complaint came from. What did House and Senate intel committee dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint?

5/ My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved?

6/ This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to come because IC officers appear to be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White House.

7/ Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line into policy. This violates a core responsibility of IC officers is to inform, but not make policy.

8/ This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials.