The thing is, he did not mishandle the whistle blower case.
You sure about that?
Here is what he did that shows he tried hard to advance a
bogus whistleblower claim, he changed the rules AFTER he got the report, to keep it viable since the rules makes clear the Whistleblower has to be an
actual witness, but Atkinson waived that pesky rule to allow second/third hand claims be allowed for a contrived/useless whistleblower claim.
ICIG Michael Atkinson Attempts Four-Page Justification for Changing “Urgent Concern” Whistle-blower Guidelines…
Posted on
September 30, 2019 by
sundance
Excerpt:
Methinks Mr. Atkinson doth protest too much. Prior to the current “whistle-blower complaint” the Intelligence Community Inspector General did not accept Urgent Concern whistle-blower claims without first hand knowledge.
However, the ICIG revised the protocol in August 2019 to accept a CIA complaint against President Donald Trump.
Today the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, presented a
four-page justification explaining why the IC changed the Urgent Concern rules to allow the CIA to target President Trump with anonymous complaints based on
hearsay:
bolding mine
His 4 page bullshit in the LINK
=====
Read the rest of the link to see WHY they changed the rules, it involved Schiff, Burr and the turd Atkinson.
I remember this clearly from last year, he changed the rule to promote a
hearsay whistleblower claim.
======
More about this turd Atkinson:
Dirty Business – ICIG Atkinson Receives Ethics Complaint Against CIA ‘Whistleblower’, Goes to Schiff Basement for Talks…
ICIG Michael Atkinson is the link that connects Spygate to the Schiff Impeachment Effort
Chad Pergram
noted that Intelligence Community Inspector General (IGIC) Michael Atkinson was spotted today going into HPSCI Chairman Schiffs’ basement bunker for discussions with the impeachment inquisitors.
There are some problems with your claims...besides suspect sources.
1. “Prior to the current “whistle-blower complaint” the Intelligence Community Inspector General did not accept Urgent Concern whistle-blower claims without first hand knowledge.
However, the ICIG revised the protocol in August 2019 to accept a CIA complaint against President Donald Trump.”
“The law was not changed. What happened was a form was changed. A form cannot change the law,” one attorney told NBC News.
www.nbcnews.com
But the law hasn’t changed, and there is no requirement that whistleblowers stick to first-hand information in their complaints precisely because those filings are designed to trigger official investigations that would uncover such first-hand information, three attorneys who represent whistleblowers told NBC News.
“The whistleblower does not need to prove right off the bat with direct evidence what they’re claiming,” explained Eric Bachman, an attorney with Zuckerman Law who represents whistleblowers. “That type of direct evidence is frankly hard to come by. Instead, the whistleblower needs to have a reasonable belief that something illegal has occurred, and then it’s up to the inspector general to investigate.”
The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community released a statement confirming that there is no requirement for first-hand information in such a complaint and said they had not rejected complaints on that basis. The form was changed this summer, when new employees began reviewing forms.
"In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees."
The Ukraine whistleblower, the statement noted, used both first-hand and second-hand information in the complaint.
Senator Grassley, one of the authors of whistle blower legislation:
“
When it comes to whether someone qualifies as a whistleblower, the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren’t legal ones. It’s just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility.”
This claim that Atkinson changed policy, procedure, protocol or law is bogus.
Worse, it has become a conspiracy theory (I will use the leftwing version of Conservative Tree House):
Team Trump Stirs Up Completely Bogus Claim About Whistleblower
It seems like they are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, the regulatory framework, and the language on one form,” said Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.
The kernel of fact near the center of the conspiracy theory is that there is, indeed, a new version of Form 401 dated August 2019.
A question on the form explicitly anticipates tips based on secondhand information, and asks the whistleblower to check a box: “I have direct and personal knowledge,” or, “I heard about it from others.” The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story.
What the article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018, making it impossible that it was added as an easement for Trump’s whistleblower. The major difference in the fields is that the old form includes three options instead of two, subdividing secondhand sources into outside source and “other employees.”
If you are firing Atkinson, be honest, say it is because he followed the law and was disloyal to trump. That is what it is.
I see that you didn't actually QUOTE the IGIC as I did in another
THREAD
Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints
Excerpt:
At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the following language:
At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the ICIG on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the following language: In order to find an urgent concern “credible,”
the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA.
If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
bolding mine
LINK
=====
And this you missed, from the other thread:
It is all laid out HERE showing the Whistleblower claims clearly failed to be first hand knowledge:
Intel IG Admits It Secretly Erased ‘First-Hand Information’ Requirement In August
======
You should know when you are being lied to......
www.washingtonexaminer.com
www.businessinsider.com
www.politico.com
