Federalist: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge


Is it coincidence or evidence of a plot?

It probably matters which version of the rules the UkraineGate whistleblower was operating under, since under one set of rules hearsay is not allowed, and other another it is.

For the time being, however, critical details about the rules change are unknown. And thus the status and validity of the whistleblower complaint against the president remain questionable.

If I had to guess, I’d recommend erring on the side of conspiracy theory. This whole topic is looking more and more like a Wrestlemania saga.

26 thoughts on “Federalist: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

    1. @Tabor
      Try your gas lighting somewhere else. You have worn it out here. The truth is the exact opposite of what you claim. As it often is with Stalinist Trump supporters. The essential points of the complaint have already been copped to.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You didn’t even read the link above.

        It lists several claims in the complaint that by public record, and the transcript itself, are not true.

        Scan down to “The anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and debunked.”

        and go from there.


    2. What you should be stunned by is the number of points that are substantiated by the summary of the call, and by the circumstance that the summary was falsely classified and stored in conflict with the laws of storage of classified information.

      AND, before you spout some trash about the President having broad powers of classification… IT IS A VIOLATION of the law to use classification for the purpose of hiding evidence of a crime.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You might have a point if this conversation had been treated differently, but the President’s conversations with foreign leaders have all been treated the same way for the last 2 years.

        Foreign leaders cannot speak frankly to the President is they expect that their conversations will not remain private. This has been true for as long as direct electronic communications have been possible, long before Trump was in office.

        The storage of those records was changed to a more secure, limited access, server after two of the Presidents conversations (Australia and Mexico) were unlawfully leaked to the press by an unknown staffer.

        It is entirely normal for sensitive material to be stored this way in order to keep track of who has accessed the file and to prevent it’s transmission to outside contacts.


        1. @Tabor
          This Ukraine conversation was NOT treated like every other conversation for the past two years.

          That it was appears to be yet another “alternative fact.” If an important part of the complaint has been refuted by actual evidence then it would be major news. I have found no evidence supporting this “alternative fact.”

          Maybe you are confused because there are two levels of “sensitive material?” Or maybe you can cite a reliable source for this “information” that you have offered several times without such a cite?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Your “evidence” confirms what the Whistleblower said and that is that the procedure used to hide information on Trump’s discussion with the Ukraine President had been used before. It does NOT confirm that all head of state calls got the same treatment. From the article . . .

            “MANY calls between the president and world leaders instead were stored in a secure server to avoid leaks. The sources who talked to ABC News did caution that it’s unclear if the calls being stored were done so for national security or for political concerns. The sources would not specify if any countries were treated differently than others.”


        2. “You might have a point if this conversation had been treated differently, but the President’s conversations with foreign leaders have all been treated the same way for the last 2 years.”
          Yes, contrary to the Presidential Records Act.

          “It is entirely normal for sensitive material to be stored this way in order to keep track of who has accessed the file and to prevent it’s transmission to outside contacts.”

          Oh, where did you get this gem? Just a quick question Doc, when was the last time you had your security clearance review? There are methods to limit access to various documents at all clearance levels, including signature required access, without resorting to falsely raising the level of documents or storing them on the chosen system.

          First some misconceptions being spread about. The “stand alone” description. Unless connected via SIPRNet, computers for handling classified data are ALL stand alone. What this means is that these computers have no Network Interface Cards. They also DON’T have fixed disks. The disks (with OS) are removable and stored in safes with limited access. They are usually in a space that has a locked door, and in most cases a “two-person at all times” requirement. The box is wrapped like a Xmas present with evidence tape and all access is logged and reviewed.

          The kind of computer system they are talking about (given they contain “code word” intelligence data) I have only seen once or twice in my life. These computers are inside a vault, not a just a locked room. They have dedicated power supplies that are filtered to prevent RF signals from the computer having any chance of accidental leak. The walls of the vault have copper mesh and the whole system goes through something called “Tempest testing” to prevent any possibility of eavesdropping.

          The notion that these conversations had to be stored in this manner is BS and was done to avoid notice.

          If the goal were to limit access, this could have been accomplished on ANY classified system by simply storing the documents on a removable disk in a locked container with limited access.

          Liked by 2 people

        3. RE: “If the goal were to limit access, this could have been accomplished on ANY classified system by simply storing the documents on a removable disk in a locked container with limited access.”

          That’s exactly what was done, apparently. It sounds like the president chose to use one SCIF instead of another. Not much to see in that.


  1. Which is more laughable – the Federalist or the people who take it seriously?

    Classic attack the messenger bull. Bwaaah – He did not have first hand knowledge but only heard about it from people who did.

    Maybe you Trumpists should try to think about why Trump inspires ZERO loyalty in so many of the people HE has chosen to surround himself with? This complaint appears to be the fruit of just another example of the leaks, gossip and infighting that has made Trump’s White House and his leadership a joke.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Okay another failed post, but the gist is this. The form changed because the LAW changed, either by act of congress or by judicial decisions… NOT because the Intelligence Community changed the law.

    For all of those idiots you are reading that push this conspiracy theory, Schoolhouse Rock has an excellent refresher on laws.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. What change in law?

      I can’t find anything other than the internal decision to change the form, apparently to accommodate this leaker.,

      So, cite please.

      In any case, the leaker has been identified,

      It is Kevin Cronin of REO Speedwagon. Sources say he…”heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another.”


      1. You’re right. I have continued looked for some change too.
        OTOH, there is nothing, to begin with, in the law that says 2nd hand information is to be treated any differently than 1st hand information. Nothing in the description of protected disclosures, nor the definitions of “urgent concerns” or “credible” that says the information can be treated differently.
        Apparently, that statement on the old form was in contradiction to the law.
        I guess our next step would be to find an appellant court decision on that statement, if one, or an explanation from the ICIG as to why the form was brought into conformance with the definitions in the law.


  3. Okay, here’s the deal on your link. First, the form linked in the article is stamped “unclassified” meaning it is used to report “urgent concerns” of an unclassified nature, or the person(s) reporting should NOT include classified information on the form.

    Our whistleblower did not use the form because he included classified attachments (http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/09/26/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf) See the paragraph about removing the attachments. So, the change on the form made no difference to him since he didn’t use it.

    Next, the change between the forms is the removal of a warning. The older form included a warning that the IG could not submit your complaint as a protected disclosure by the IC Whistleblower Protection Act if it was NOT first hand knowledge. Meaning if you are submitting second hand knowledge, you MAY NOT be protected from reprisal. Clearly that has changed.

    If you would like to know why that changed, ask Dan Meyer and Senator Chuck Grassley.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Nicely broken down, it’s a full-time job to counter deny and deflect.

      One of the challenges the Dems have is the time and energy they use to debunk and correct the numerous lies and conspiracies that the GOP and trump spit out.

      Hopefully they’ll have the sense to stay on the black and white trump confession and kick him out the door with it.

      And then there’s Pence….

      Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “Meaning if you are submitting second hand knowledge, you MAY NOT be protected from reprisal.”

      You could make the same point as a positive assertion: Henceforth, whistleblowers reporting rumors, speculation and hearsay will be given the same protections as those reporting first hand knowledge.

      The odd thing is that the change apparently happened just in time to accommodate the complaint we are hearing about. We don’t know why, or whether it affected the submission of the complaint in any way.


      1. RE: “You don’t know that.”

        I do know that. You, yourself, described the policy change that the revised form implements. I merely restated your own description in positive language.

        I suppose its possible that the original version of the form was flawed in some way by which it misrepresented IC policy, but in light of the substantive changes to “permit” the reporting of hearsay that seems unlikely, especially since the complaint actually submitted consists largely of hearsay.

        As I said in introducing the link, “Is it coincidence or evidence of a plot?”


  4. The Federalist appears to be in full-on Trump Protection mode. The whataboutism is ridiculous, but rest assured, I believe that if a Democrat were doing this, the gallows would have been built, the knots tied, and the executioner would have his hood on already. The Federalist knows that if a Democrat is elected, their hand-picked judicial recommendations will be worth less than the paper they are printed on. Not only are they trying to protect Trump, they are trying to protect their own political influence. And it has NOTHING to do with standing by the Constitution.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “The whataboutism is ridiculous”

      What “whataboutism” are you referring to?

      The Federalist makes a factual report about a change in policy/procedure within the IC that appears to have been simultaneous with and related to the whistleblower complaint. Should we wish to not know about it?


      1. I was referring to my own whataboutism. However, it happens all of the time. I was pleading guilty to my own transgression. Too bad Trump doesn’t see anything he does through the same lens as sane people.


  5. Here, get yourself a copy and read it from cover to cover: http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/careerfields/national-industry-security-program-operating-manual-nispom

    The basic rule on classified data is “Everything has a place, and everything in its place.” Falsely changing a classification, or knowingly storing a document in a facility or container, up or down in security level, not prescribed for that document or without appropriate transmittal forms is a violation.

    I know this for a fact since I was gigged for doing such. In my case, first week on the job, Friday night, I found myself with a secret document in a facility with a bunch of locked safes and could not get in touch with anyone who could open them. After sitting there for awhile, I put the document in an envelop and dropped between the back of the safe and the wall, and reported myself on Monday. The DISCO investigator congratulated me on a resourceful solution, the safe weighed 1000 pounds, and then gigged me with a warning.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s