The Washington Examiner’s Byron York weighed in on the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s explanation (link: here) of the changes made to the whistleblower form, calling it a “confusing, ass-covering mess.”
THREAD ==>
The Intelligence Community Inspector General's explanation of its whistleblower form is a confusing, ass-covering mess. 1/12 https://t.co/hDem5G05DA
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 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
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
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
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
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
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
That means ICIG procedures form, the one handed to whistleblower, was wrong on question of first- versus second-hand information. 5/12
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
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
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
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
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
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
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
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
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
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
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
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
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
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.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 1, 2019
***
Related:
'Great reporting by Sean Davis: 'Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge' https://t.co/98zvKx2EAl
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 27, 2019
