Spy Bureaucracy Changed Whistleblower Rules To Allow Hearsay
Written by R. Cort Kirkwood
It appears that America’s intelligence apparatus rewrote its rules on whistleblowers to do what Hillary Clinton and Special Counsel Robert Mueller couldn’t do: Keep Donald Trump, or throw Donald Trump, out of the White House.
In the old days, when a whistleblower wanted to report wrongdoing, he had to witness it. But now, he only has to hear about it. Intelligence officials rewrote the rules within the last year.
That’s what allowed the anonymous CIA “whistleblower” to concoct nine pages of hearsay about President Trump’s putative wrongdoing in a phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, then send it to Congress.
A logical deduction from Sean Davis’s story about the change, divulged at The Federalist, is this: The Deep State monkeyed with the whistleblower rules for another attempt to overthrow of the president of the United States.
First-hand Knowledge Not Required
“Between May 2018 and August 2019,” Davis reported, the spy bureaucracy “secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,” which of course raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump.”
That complaint, which is 100-percent hearsay, alleges that Trump broke the law when he asked Zelensky to get to the bottom of the Biden-Burisma influence-peddling scandal. The claim?
Trump sought “foreign interference” in the 2020 election when he told the Ukrainian leader that something was fishy about former Vice President Joe Biden’s pushing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. That prosecutor just happened to be investigating a company that employed Biden’s son, Hunter.
They didn’t get Trump on the ridiculous charge of Russian “collusion,” and so the Deep State manufactured a similar claim for the 2020 presidential contest. This time, we are told, the “foreign interference” comes from Ukraine.
Trump, the Deep State says, must go. Domestic interference will get rid of him.
Thus do we have a “whistleblower” and a new “disclosure of urgent concern” form, Davis reported, which “eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only ‘heard about [wrongdoing] from others.’”
In other words, hearsay evidence is now admissible in allegations of wrongdoing.
The revised form “was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public,” Davis wrote. “The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.”
Before that, a whistleblower could only blow the whistle if he witnessed or otherwise had first-hand knowledge of the wrongdoing, David reported.
The old form, OK’d May 24, 2018, is crystal clear, Davis observed. “The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,” the form stated under these words: “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.” “This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing.”
The form added this to ensure whistleblowers understood the rules: “If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.”
But in August, miraculously enough for the anti-Trump CIA whistleblower, a new version appeared with this language:
I know about the information I am disclosing here, and:
I have direct and personal knowledge
I heard about it from others.
So-and-so Told Me
As The New American reported last week, the entirety of the whistleblower’s complaint is hearsay. “Told me” appears eight times; “I was told” and “I spoke with” appears thrice; and “based on my understanding” appears twice.
Other locations, as Davis noted, include:
• “officials have informed me;”
• “I learned from multiple U.S. officials;”
• “one White House official described this act;”
• “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me;”
• “based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me;”
• “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials.”
As the whistleblower admitted, “I was not a direct witness” to the Trump-Zelensky call.
Typically, courts do not admit hearsay evidence. Yet Congress has jettisoned that legal principle and the accepted litany of second- and likely third-hand claims as gospel to impeach a president.
Hate-Trump Democrats have been preparing his gallows since 2016. The Deep State Intel Combine thinks it has provided the rope.
Courtesy of The New American