task0778
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 12,619
- 11,768
On Sept. 30, ICIG Intel community Inspector General) Michael Atkinson issued a news release acknowledging that, under the policy existing when he received the whistleblower's complaint, he could not have deemed it credible and reported it to the director of national intelligence. Instead, he admitted, he processed the complaint under a policy allowing second-hand information — a policy that he did not establish until after he received that complaint.
According to his news release, Atkinson simply accepted at face value the whistleblower’s assertion that he had first-hand information of at least some of the events alleged, even though the report itself provides no such information.
The whistleblower policy says that the ICIG could not deem a complaint credible based on second-hand information. But it does not prevent a whistleblower from filing such a complaint or prevent Atkinson from using it as the basis for an investigation that might reveal first-hand sources. And besides, Atkinson continues, this whistleblower checked a box on a form filed with the complaint saying that he did have first-hand information.
But, Atkinson has admitted that he never reviewed the White House memorandum describing the content of the Trump-Zelensky call before concluding that the complaint about that call was “credible.” It appears that he substituted a checked box representing an unsupported assertion of first-hand knowledge for the actual substance and content of the complaint itself. IOW, he didn't verify anything, otherwise we would now by now what WAS his 1st-hand knowledge. The truth? Not a damn thing.
So Atkinson ignored what was the correct policy to check the report from this whistleblower and verify what was first-hand knowledge and review the entire report for fallacies. The report should have been validated, but wasn't. Instead, he sent it to the Democrats in the House, which to me smacks of biased and unprofessional conduct on his part. I want to know who he works for, what is the CoC from him up to Trump, and then I want to know what Trump is going to do about it. And then I want people to get fired, if not prosecuted.
And we haven't even talked about the scandal behind Atkinson's decision to backdate the whistleblower's report to AFTER the change was made to the Whistleblower policy to allow a report if it has no 1st-hand knowledge. Atkinson wanted this report to be made public and given to the Democrats to use for political purposes, and that is not his fucking job.
What’s Going On in the Intelligence Community IG Office?
Look, any whistleblower report, with or without 1st-hand knowledge ought to be verified, especially if it's all 2nd-hand knowledge. You cannot put this shit out in the wind without proper validation.
According to his news release, Atkinson simply accepted at face value the whistleblower’s assertion that he had first-hand information of at least some of the events alleged, even though the report itself provides no such information.
The whistleblower policy says that the ICIG could not deem a complaint credible based on second-hand information. But it does not prevent a whistleblower from filing such a complaint or prevent Atkinson from using it as the basis for an investigation that might reveal first-hand sources. And besides, Atkinson continues, this whistleblower checked a box on a form filed with the complaint saying that he did have first-hand information.
But, Atkinson has admitted that he never reviewed the White House memorandum describing the content of the Trump-Zelensky call before concluding that the complaint about that call was “credible.” It appears that he substituted a checked box representing an unsupported assertion of first-hand knowledge for the actual substance and content of the complaint itself. IOW, he didn't verify anything, otherwise we would now by now what WAS his 1st-hand knowledge. The truth? Not a damn thing.
So Atkinson ignored what was the correct policy to check the report from this whistleblower and verify what was first-hand knowledge and review the entire report for fallacies. The report should have been validated, but wasn't. Instead, he sent it to the Democrats in the House, which to me smacks of biased and unprofessional conduct on his part. I want to know who he works for, what is the CoC from him up to Trump, and then I want to know what Trump is going to do about it. And then I want people to get fired, if not prosecuted.
And we haven't even talked about the scandal behind Atkinson's decision to backdate the whistleblower's report to AFTER the change was made to the Whistleblower policy to allow a report if it has no 1st-hand knowledge. Atkinson wanted this report to be made public and given to the Democrats to use for political purposes, and that is not his fucking job.
What’s Going On in the Intelligence Community IG Office?
Look, any whistleblower report, with or without 1st-hand knowledge ought to be verified, especially if it's all 2nd-hand knowledge. You cannot put this shit out in the wind without proper validation.
Last edited:
