It seems to me that entire chains of command are being nullified here and that intel compartmentalization is compromised by such practices.

I notice no legal consequences even if someone is just completely making up false allegations to make trouble, to create material to leak to the press, to get others fired so they can advance their own career (or that of their "rabbi").

Lots of potential in this to make major problems, including opportunities for hostile powers to make mischief.

I do not recall ever before seeing a Rev date with month and year but no day. With the day not specified, it's kind of hard to tell if this change occurred before or after the whistleleaker filed the complaint.

RedState: BREAKING: Intel Community Secretly Changed the Whistle-Blower Rules to Allow the Trump-Ukraine Complaint Just Days Before It Was Filed

It's just one of RedState's bloggers so it may not mean much. I see that some people are starting to raise the idea that there never was such a disclosure form prior to this complaint.

Anyway, I saw it and thought of your thread here.

RedState: BREAKING: Intel Community Secretly Changed the Whistle-Blower Rules to Allow the Trump-Ukraine Complaint Just Days Before It Was Filed

I had not seen this specific article, but have seen some similar coverage. I cannot determine, without a specific rev date, if this was to allow the whistleleaker complaint, or a post-complaint CYA effort. If the Rev date was after the 12 August submission, it would not change the requirement on 12 August. The metadata creation date of the online form is 24 September 2019. The purported Rev date is just August 2019.

The published Complaint of August 12, 2019 is on plain paper. I have not seen any associated urgent concern disclosure form.

I'm not sure how these things work with the feds. I assume they have some office that approves and issues forms. Also that they would have a committee that would oversee changes to forms and that at least one person in upper management would have to sign off on any changes. I don't think the feds just let anyone change their forms at the drop of a hat. There should be a committee and someone in management signing off on it.

I always thought Coates was a very weak choice for DNI, don't see why they chose him. The current Acting DNI is Joseph Maguire who took office as Acting Director on August 19, 2019.

So if the Deep State was going to sneak something into the pipeline to leak about, it would make sense to do it when Trump's top political appointee was cleaning out his desk. Funny it only took a month of Coates being gone and all of a sudden a major impeachment scandal surfaces via some new complaint form that for the first time allows hearsay accusations, something explicitly forbidden for decades.

I'm not sure how these things work with the feds.

I have some familiarity how form management works with federal government agencies. GSA controls for all government agencies, except when it is No Such Agency or Alphabet City.

The August 12 submission, as published, is not on any form.

The August 12 submission, as published, is not on any form.

But shouldn't there be a design committee behind form changes and some official signing off on it on a particular date and certifying the official form, using another form that responsible officials use to designate the official new form along with a filed original of the official document? What I knew of formal document creation involved input from the department, a committee making recommendations, and a responsible designated official making an official approval of the final form, after which the form went into general use and all obsolete forms were discarded/recycled. That's what we did at a big corporation I worked at and that was just for routine employee matters, not national security.

This is national security administration, not just Joe Blow going down to file some change of address form at the local post office. A lot of lawyers probably worked on this form. That is, if it is actually a legitimate form that passed the appropriate procedure under forms created for national security. These are not some ad hoc forms cranked out at a moment's notice.

It's impossible to imagine that DNI's legal advisers did not have input into the creation of a new document, one that contravened a decades-long policy against filing hearsay whistleblower complaints, such as this case. There should be a record of the DNI legal staff working on the form and vetting it, perhaps discussion of it among legal staff, a final approval (or disapproval) of the revised form.

What I'm saying is there should be a form design committee, a public official with final approval, and some records of the DNI legal staff involved in reviewing such a major revision to a form in use for decades unchanged.

What I knew of formal document creation involved input from the department, a committee making recommendations, and a responsible designated official making an official approval of the final form, after which the form went into general use and all obsolete forms were discarded/recycled.

For most of the Government there is this and other regulations.

https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/Handbook09.pdf

STANDARD AND OPTIONAL FORMS

PROCEDURAL HANDBOOK

Forms Policy and Management Team
GSA Office of Governmentwide Policy
forms@gsa.gov
July 2009

For most of the Government there is this and other regulations.

https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/Handbook09.pdf

I think the forms and process are rather different at intel agencies than they are at Commerce, or Agriculture, or Education.

Some of the intel agency forms themselves are likely classified material. Because it is so useful to keep them confidential.

So I'm not prepared to believe that a whistleblower form at the DNI's office is exactly the same as whistleblower forms at routine civilian federal agencies.

So I'm not prepared to believe that a whistleblower form at the DNI's office is exactly the same as whistleblower forms at routine civilian federal agencies.

I'm fairly certain that they are not. I just heard on Fox News that the whistleblower used the appropriate 2018 form with the associated August 212 complaint and, therein, claimed first hand knowledge. And Trump had directed the keeping of all forms, a timeline of the changes, and who signed off on the change.

I'm fairly certain that they are not. I just heard on Fox News that the whistleblower used the appropriate 2018 form with the associated August 212 complaint and, therein, claimed first hand knowledge. And Trump had directed the keeping of all forms, a timeline of the changes, and who signed off on the change.

So do you now disbelieve that the forms were unchanged entirely at the DNI office and at the various intel agencies?

Are you suggesting that only the forms used at intelligence agencies allow for hearsay accusations to be made?

Something is starting to sound inconsistent about what you have been relating about the new hearsay allowance of whistleblower allegations that are now supposedly in effect at the DNI office or at the intel agencies.

I wouldn't accept everything heard on FNC as gospel either. Baier hosts NeverTrumpers (including his best college buddy is NeverTrumper Steve Hayes). And you have NeverTrumper Sheppy Smith who is gaying it up almost daily with Judge Napolitano. I'm getting more and more the impression that FNC's opinion shows are more trustworthy for hard news info than is FNC's daytime news division with Shep Smith and Bret Baier.

Who on FNC was reporting the use of the 2018 form along with the revised August complaint and did they report this on FNC or did you surmise this for yourself? Who stated directly (and on which show) that the whistleblower had firsthand knowledge and not a hearsay accusation?

Why can't I find any other news source confirming what you are alleging was reported at FNC about the whistleblower and firsthand allegations. I'm getting nothing from a handful of the usual rather busy news sites. Nada. Is only FNC reporting this?

I just heard on Fox News that the whistleblower used the appropriate 2018 form with the associated August 212 complaint and, therein, claimed first hand knowledge....

I still don't have any other sites or news sources offering any confirmation of this news. It seems to me that going from a second-hand whistleblower to being a first-hand whistleblower would be Big News. And I see nothing anywhere on this.

Can you provide any links to reporting on this that supports what you related that you heard on Fox News?

The only info I found on the FNC front page on the web was this:

FNC: Amid Ukraine complaint, GOP questions move to drop ‘first-hand’ info requirement in whistleblower form

Needless to say, they are making no mention of any first-hand whistleblower story.

You realize that such a story would be Breaking News everywhere on liberal and conservative sites and TV channels, that they had an accuser with first-hand testimony to bring to bear during impeachment proceedings. Yet, I can find no other reporting on this story other than your statement that you say you heard this reported on FNC just a few hours ago.

Are you sure you heard the reporting accurately and in full? What show was it on? Maybe we could find a YouBoob upload of today's shows, like Baier's show or McCollum's show. Or even The Five (well, assuming they haven't finally shitcanned that waste of time).

I just heard on Fox News that the whistleblower used the appropriate 2018 form with the associated August 212 complaint and, therein, claimed first hand knowledge.

I still don't have any other sites or news sources offering any confirmation of this news.

I watched a reporter show a copy of a document in her hand and say they had just received it and she proceeded to quote what I believe was the following from page 2 of this ICIG News Release of today:

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.

The Release also states at 2:

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.”

The second part was not read, but it was stated that the whistleblower had check a box declaring personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records.

I only caught it that one time and posted from memory, but it seems to me that the form the ICIG had in place in 2018 is not the same as the one with the Rev date of August 2019. Make of it what you will.

https://www.scribd.com/document/428184513/ICIG-Statement-on-Processing-of-Whistleblower-Complaints-30-Sep-2019

Who stated directly (and on which show) that the whistleblower had firsthand knowledge and not a hearsay accusation?

The ICIG in a new report which was in the reporter's hand.

Why can't I find any other news source confirming what you are alleging was reported at FNC about the whistleblower and firsthand allegations.

Because you have not yet achieved Jedi mastery over the google. :-)

These people in the IC have turned into such blabbermouths that it's hard to take them seriously. Only a few decades back, you never learned the internal processes of these agencies until decades later because denying that information to your enemy counterparts narrows your defensive surface and helps you detect security leaks.

The more we spend on the IC, especially CIA/NSA, the less they can keep even minor secrets. They can't stop talking, it seems.

Looking at the Scribd document that you posted here, I can see that it was uploaded to Scribd by a nolu chan. I assume that you are he. Perhaps you should mention that you are the source of these documents at Scribd.

Can you provide any independent news source that provides the same press release from our chatty ICIG? Can you provide any direct document link to the ICIG's office and their press releases?

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

I see that they are retards about white space in file names. Some people just never learn.

I found the link in an article at HotAir: Lindsey Graham: “We’re not going to try the president of the United States based on hearsay”

I see now that there is a DNI news release.

It was on Lou Dobbs on Fox Business channel last night. The first few minutes before that are worth watching.

At 2:54 Andrew McCarthy comments on the statute.

Catherine Herridge talked about the ICIG report in her hand that had just been received at the 3:13 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVKTLR9F-UQ

I'm more interested in who Barr is meeting with in Italy right now. He's been there for several days already on official business.

Italy is where Misfud is located. And Barr is still hot to expose the FISA court warrant abuses against Papadopoulos.

TheConservativeTreehouse: Attorney General Bill Barr Visits Italy on “Official Business”? – Remember That Audio-Tape Deposition by Joseph Mifsud?…

I'd post a thread but any meaty details about the trip are not being reported, at least not yet. It's a story to watch. Barr isn't afraid to take action even if the Slimes and WaPo sniff in disapproval. Too bad the Court's weak sister, John Roberts, never learned to do the same.

I'm more interested in who Barr is meeting with in Italy right now. He's been there for several days already on official business.

Italy is where Misfud is located.

And Italy is where Secretary of State Pompeo has gone.

Mifsud is Maltese and could be located there, near Sicily. Dunno where they might meet, but flying in to Malta would be a bit obvious.

When the Senate holds hearings and Mifsud shows up to testify, Barr's efforts will pay off. Similarly if Barr indicts and prosecutes the Brennan Clown Posse to attempt to flip them against Obama and the Xlinton crime family. Well, okay, that probably won't happen but I can dream...

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1179085352285413376

Byron York
Verified account @ByronYork

The Intelligence Community Inspector General's explanation of its whistleblower form is a confusing, ass-covering mess.

1/12 http://ow.ly/FoOA50wyu7S 10:27 AM - 1 Oct 2019

ICIG says Trump-Russia whistleblower complaint was 'processed and reviewed...in accordance with the law.' Fine. Issue addressed in ICIG explanation is what policy on first- versus second-hand information was at the time. 2/12

ICIG says it gave whistleblower a procedures form saying in order to find urgent concern 'credible,' complainant must have 'reliable, first-hand information.' Without that, ICIG 'will not be able to process the complaint.' 3/12

But ICIG then notes 'there is no [first-hand information] requirement set forth in the statute.' Further: 'In fact, by law the complainant...need not possess first-hand information' in order to file complaint. 4/12

That means ICIG procedures form, the one handed to whistleblower, was wrong on question of first- versus second-hand information. 5/12

What gives? ICIG says procedures form was in effect since 5/24/18, before ICIG Atkinson took office 5/29/18. Translation: Don't look at me -- it was before my time! 6/12

ICIG also notes whistleblower claimed he had both second-hand *and* first-hand information. So ICIG did *not* find that whistleblower could 'provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions.' 7/12

Not clear what first-hand information in whistleblower complaint is. Key accusations concerning Trump-Zelensky call and alleged WH coverup afterward are entirely second-hand. 8/12

So what about procedures form? ICIG says new person was hired to run Center for Protected Disclosures, was working on updating forms. Then Trump-Ukraine brouhaha erupted, and ICIG saw something was amiss... 9/12

ICIG says amid controversy, he 'understood that certain language in those forms...could be read--incorrectly--as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information.' Of course, that's exactly what the form said. 10/12

So ICIG's office developed new forms. 'Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information,' ICIG says. And that looked like after-the-fact justification of whistleblower handling. 11/12

In summary, ICIG seems be saying: Whistleblower was given form with incorrect information. Not my fault! Then, after Trump-Ukraine exploded, we changed form to match law. Yes, looked fishy, but all OK. 12/12 End.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General's explanation of its whistleblower form is a confusing, ass-covering mess.

It does all seem like amateur hour, doesn't it? And I'm not sure we can really lay any blame at Trump's door for his constant hiring/firing patterns since I don't think those reached the IC's Inspector General. And the changeover to an acting DNI from Coates' departure doesn't seem to me to affect the ICIG at all. At least it shouldn't. The IG's are pretty independent by congressional design and authority, especially when dealing with whistleblowers. They proudly brag about how Congress has protected whistleblowers since the 1790s so they should be able to do the whistleblower part of the job properly even if they are new to the job or if their boss - the DNI in this case - resigns and an acting head is running the rest of the department.

Most of these people are bureaucratic appointees promoted from within the department. The current one is too inexperienced or just too incompetent to put out a proper story to defend his actions. He's actually made things worse by all the bad reporting that pretty much leads back to him. He's kind of a blabbermouth for an inspector general who should know to keep his mouth shut and control his messaging to the public very very carefully.

The current one is too inexperienced or just too incompetent to put out a proper story to defend his actions.

Nah, he is thoroughly competent but his actions have been professionally inexplicable from a legal viewpoint. Finding that asserted "urgent concern" applied to the President, even after it was explained in excruciating detail why it did not, did not result from incompetence. He gets his marching orders and carries them out. Better to look incompetent than the alternative. This incompetence is like Comey incompetence investigating Hillary.

Confirmation – Bill Barr and John Durham Listened to Mifsud Audio-Tape Deposition in Italy…

Posted on October 1, 2019
The Conservative Treehouse by sundance

When reports first surfaced that AG Bill Barr had traveled to Italy recently, we surmised the trip was likely related to Joseph Mifsud; specifically related to an audio-taped deposition that Mifsud gave to Italian police about being a western intelligence asset who was enlisted by the CIA (Brennan) to run a covert intelligence operation against the Donald Trump campaign in 2016.

If accurate, well, there’s the motive for the latest “CIA whistle-blower” approach.

The Daily Beast is now reporting that Bill Barr’s visit to Italy was exactly for that reason:

ROME–When Attorney General William Barr showed up at the U.S. embassy’s Palazzo Margherita on Rome’s tony Via Veneto last week, he had two primary requests. He needed a conference room to meet high level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in. And he needed an extra chair for U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut who would be sitting at his right hand side.

[…] The Daily Beast has learned that Barr and Durham were especially interested in what the Italian secret service knew about Joseph Mifsud, the erstwhile professor from Malta who had allegedly promised then candidate Donald Trump’s campaign aide George Papadopoulos he could deliver Russian “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

The Italian Justice Ministry public records show that Mifsud had applied for police protection in Italy after disappearing from Link University where he worked and, in doing so, had given a taped deposition to explain just why people might want to harm him.

A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were played the tape.

A second source within the Italian government also confirmed to The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were shown other evidence the Italians had on Mifsud. (read more)

It is unknown whether Barr and Durham actually interviewed Mr. Mifsud in person. Some say yes, some say no.

[...]

Finding that asserted "urgent concern" applied to the President, even after it was explained in excruciating detail why it did not, did not result from incompetence. He gets his marching orders and carries them out.

They are supposed to be fiercely independent on whistleblowers. Congress has written pretty explicit laws and they apply across all federal agencies, even the IC.

The moment it becomes a whistleblower case, the IG is off his leash with his superior. Which is why they almost cannot get fired over a whistleblower case. The whistleblower is protected by law, the IG is too.

ROME–When Attorney General William Barr showed up at the U.S. embassy’s Palazzo Margherita on Rome’s tony Via Veneto last week, he had two primary requests. He needed a conference room to meet high level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in. And he needed an extra chair for U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut who would be sitting at his right hand side.

Yep, curiouser and curiouser. You can see why I was intrigued. Because that is a helluva lot of intrigue, especially with an American A.G. going overseas with a particular U.S. attorney to meet with a foreign secret service.

Something is definitely up. Barr is no fool and he is action-oriented. He wouldn't have gone if there was another way to achieve his goal. And Italy is under the control of two allied parties, both very friendly to Trump. Yet, Barr went in person with his chosen prosecutor at his side just to get this info, whatever it is.

We will definitely hear more about this and see some kind of significant court case from it.