Byron York explains the “confusing, ass-covering mess” the ICIG calls a statement


A Politico article on this link proves that the CIA ‘whistleblower’s’ claims about procedures to safeguard transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign officials are false. It’s another error or another lie in the ‘whistleblower’s’ statement. The man isn’t even a whistleblower but he will be afforded all the rights of an actual whistleblower and we all must pretend this makes sense.

The DNI issued a statement (see below) which we discussed earlier and it led to the Twitter mob accusing Sean Davis of The Federalist of lying. It appeared to contradict him, but it was a mess of confusion. Davis explains on this link why that is not the case.

In a series of twelve tweets, Byron York posted an excellent analysis of the statement by the Intelligence Community Inspector General. He began by calling it a “confusing, ass-covering mess,” and that it was.

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

The ICIG explains the whistleblower had to have first-hand information and that’s what he checked off [only he didn’t have any first-hand information].

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. 

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.’ 

So, the ICIG says there’s no requirement that the ‘whistleblower’ have first-hand information.

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. 

In other words, there is no first-hand information so the ‘whistleblower’ was wrong, checked the wrong box.

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

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! 

What we said about the ICIG saying he didn’t have first-hand information, take that back. They didn’t find that after all.

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.’

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. 

The ICIG a new employee was hired to update the forms and saw this form needed updating so no one would think whistleblowers must possess first-hand information.

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…

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. 

Then they came up with new forms and it looked like they were coming up with an excuse.

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. 

York’s summary seems on the money.

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.  End.

ICIG Statement on Processing… on Scribd

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments