Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[Sam]

Doesn't matter. Because he didn't report to the IG directly, he didn't follow proper procedures, and disqualified himself from whistleblower protection. That they are extending it to him is an act of grace.



I LITERALLY quoted the relevant portion. who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICWPI deals with more than just classified information.



If they want whistleblower protection, it does. It specifically states the proper channels.



Because he didn't follow proper channels, he could have his clearance revoked, or be fired.



YOU think what we are saying through. We are not saying his conduct was criminal. We, and me specifically, are saying he went around the proper process and jeopardized his status as a whistleblower. That he was granted that status could have been challenged on the law itself had the President seen fit. And the President would have the law on his side.

No, what Mountain Man said was that he broke the law, not that he didn't proceed through proper channels and therefore could be lawfully retaliated against. He didn't break the law and Republican senators Grassley and Burr have said as much. You're just reading the statute in a way it wasn't intended (for classified information contained in a whistleblower complaint to be revealed to Congress in a specific manner), for whatever reason. Go back and look at the legislative history and why the law was enacted for the proper context.

But, hey, I've hit pretty good marks for my judicial interpretations here of late so if and when the question ever gets to court, I'm willing to put some money down on it.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

As the article clearly states and as Rosenberg reiterated later, the whistleblower came to HPSCI with a "vague accusation". No official complaint, no classified intel.

...

The Act says no direct contact prior to receiving permission from the IG. Contact - content is irrelevant.

The 'whistle blower' violated the Act and therefore enjoys no whistle blower status or protection.

[Bill the Cat]

As the article clearly states and as Rosenberg reiterated later, the whistleblower came to HPSCI with a "vague accusation". No official complaint, no classified intel.

Doesn't matter. Because he didn't report to the IG directly, he didn't follow proper procedures, and disqualified himself from whistleblower protection. That they are extending it to him is an act of grace.

The law says that the complaint containing classified or potentially classified information goes to ICIG.

I LITERALLY quoted the relevant portion. who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICWPI deals with more than just classified information.

Then, if ICIG doesn't send it to Congress, the complaint containing classified or potentially classified information can go directly to Congress. The law does not stipulate that an employee cannot approach Congress with non-classified, vague allegations.

If they want whistleblower protection, it does. It specifically states the proper channels.

What on earth do you all even believe would happen in court? The whistleblower didn't share any classified information and has a clear First Amendment right to free speech. They could go to NYT, Fox News, or any other media outlet and allege abuse and -- so long as they weren't exposing classified information -- would not be breaking any law.

Because he didn't follow proper channels, he could have his clearance revoked, or be fired.

Pull up, think it through for just a minute.

YOU think what we are saying through. We are not saying his conduct was criminal. We, and me specifically, are saying he went around the proper process and jeopardized his status as a whistleblower. That he was granted that status could have been challenged on the law itself had the President seen fit. And the President would have the law on his side.

[Sam]

Yes he did. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/u...tleblower.html



Exactly. It gives no provision for a whistleblower to address the HPSCI directly. The ICWPI says specifically that complaints must be made to the IG first.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...105publ272.htm

``(C) Any other employee of, or contractor to, an executive agency,
or element or unit thereof, determined by the President under section
2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) of title 5, United States Code, to have as its
principal function the conduct of foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence activities, who intends to report to Congress a
complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report
the complaint or information to the appropriate Inspector General (or
designee) under this Act or section 17 of the Central Intelligence
Agency Act of 1949.



Yes it is. As cited above. The law says report it to their IG.

As the article clearly states and as Rosenberg reiterated later, the whistleblower came to HPSCI with a "vague accusation". No official complaint, no classified intel.

The law says that the complaint containing classified or potentially classified information goes to ICIG. Then, if ICIG doesn't send it to Congress, the complaint containing classified or potentially classified information can go directly to Congress. The law does not stipulate that an employee cannot approach Congress with non-classified, vague allegations.

What on earth do you all even believe would happen in court? The whistleblower didn't share any classified information and has a clear First Amendment right to free speech. They could go to NYT, Fox News, or any other media outlet and allege abuse and -- so long as they weren't exposing classified information -- would not be breaking any law.

Pull up, think it through for just a minute.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

But the whistleblower didn't go to HPSCI with a complaint or even with specific information about the complaint, which is the context of "as described in clause (i)" part.

Yes he did. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/u...tleblower.html

What that part of the statue says is that if a complaint is submitted to the ICIG and if the ICIG declines to refer it to Congress then the employee may go directly to Congress with the complaint. Because, remember, the whole context here is what to do with complaints that include classified information.

Exactly. It gives no provision for a whistleblower to address the HPSCI directly. The ICWPI says specifically that complaints must be made to the IG first.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...105publ272.htm

``(C) Any other employee of, or contractor to, an executive agency,
or element or unit thereof, determined by the President under section
2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) of title 5, United States Code, to have as its
principal function the conduct of foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence activities, who intends to report to Congress a
complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report
the complaint or information to the appropriate Inspector General (or
designee) under this Act or section 17 of the Central Intelligence
Agency Act of 1949.

No law against the employee going to Congress with non-classified information seeking direction on how to proceed.

Yes it is. As cited above. The law says report it to their IG.

[Sam]

the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 explicitly requires an official concerned about wrongdoing within the government to go to the IC inspector general before the congressional panels in charge of oversight of the intelligence community.
Under a section titled, “Summary of Procedures for Reporting Urgent Concerns Pursuant to the ICWPA,” the official Director of National Intelligence (DNI) website states:
The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –
a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
b. obtains and follows from the DNI, through the IC IG, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with necessary and appropriate security procedures.

But the whistleblower didn't go to HPSCI with a complaint or even with specific information about the complaint, which is the context of "as described in clause (i)" part. What that part of the statue says is that if a complaint is submitted to the ICIG and if the ICIG declines to refer it to Congress then the employee may go directly to Congress with the complaint. Because, remember, the whole context here is what to do with complaints that include classified information.

No law against the employee going to Congress with non-classified information seeking direction on how to proceed.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

And then there's this...

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison stands by his phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump as a “simple granting of a very reasonable request” to a “trusted and respected ally.”

Asked about the exchange after delivering a lecture in Sydney on Thursday night, the prime minister said it was all totally “unremarkable.”

“It wouldn’t matter which president was conducting this investigation … it would be extraordinary for a prime minister to deny what was a very straightforward request,” SBS News reports.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-donald-trump/

But I'm sure he's lying because he doesn't want to anger Donald "The Godfather" Trump!

[Mountain Man]

I meant this statement:

You want your aid? Help me dig up dirt on my 2020 political rival.

You forgot to mention the diabolical cackle that surely followed this remark.

[Mountain Man]

If the whistleblower broke a law by approaching HPSCI before making a complaint to ICIG, what law would that be?

I posted a source earlier.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...nel-before-ig/

...the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 explicitly requires an official concerned about wrongdoing within the government to go to the IC inspector general before the congressional panels in charge of oversight of the intelligence community.

Under a section titled, “Summary of Procedures for Reporting Urgent Concerns Pursuant to the ICWPA,” the official Director of National Intelligence (DNI) website states:

The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –

a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
b. obtains and follows from the DNI, through the IC IG, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with necessary and appropriate security procedures.

The CIA whistleblower in question went to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff’s office days before the intelligence community’s inspector general, the internal investigator, and watchdog.

[Bill the Cat]

Both of those events not only happened, they're both matters of public knowledge! We know that Trump withheld funding from Ukraine for months - that's not a contested fact. We know that Trump solicited that the Ukrainian president investigate Biden - that's a matter of record in the summary transcript that the Trump administration released.

One can (try to) argue that those two things are separate and not evidence of quid pro quo ... but to argue that none of it actually happened?

--Sam

I meant this statement:

You want your aid? Help me dig up dirt on my 2020 political rival.

[Mountain Man]

IIRC, one of the people putting forward the 'mastermind' theory on a regular basis (at least as regards manipulation of the media) is MM.

[Mountain Man]

conspiracy nut!

And who has the Attorney General of the US and the Secretary of State chasing down internet conspiracy fodder from Giuliani?

And who is 'ALL IN' with the same?


Talk about projection!


I'm the guy thinking Nixon was behind the Watergate break-in after the tapes came out

You're the guy that has proof we never landed on the Moon.



Jim

But since this doesn't fit your narrative, I'm sure you'll breezily dismiss it.

I called it.

[Bill the Cat]

If the whistleblower broke a law by approaching HPSCI before making a complaint to ICIG, what law would that be? It'd have to be something relating to classified information because there's no law against walking up the steps of Congress to report an abuse.

So folks talking about the whistleblower breaking a law must either

1) Be talking about the sharing of classified information, which hasn't been reported and is, indeed, rebutted by the reporters breaking this story

or

2) ????

--Sam

the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 explicitly requires an official concerned about wrongdoing within the government to go to the IC inspector general before the congressional panels in charge of oversight of the intelligence community.
Under a section titled, “Summary of Procedures for Reporting Urgent Concerns Pursuant to the ICWPA,” the official Director of National Intelligence (DNI) website states:
The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –
a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
b. obtains and follows from the DNI, through the IC IG, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with necessary and appropriate security procedures.

[Sam]

What do you mean?

If the whistleblower broke a law by approaching HPSCI before making a complaint to ICIG, what law would that be? It'd have to be something relating to classified information because there's no law against walking up the steps of Congress to report an abuse.

So folks talking about the whistleblower breaking a law must either

1) Be talking about the sharing of classified information, which hasn't been reported and is, indeed, rebutted by the reporters breaking this story

or

2) ????

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

What law would have been broken if no classified information was shared?

What do you mean?