What Next from the ICIG?

Michael Atkinson, Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, works for us, for all of us: liberal, conservative, moderate, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, Libertarian, apolitical, indifferent. Supposedly:

In accordance with Title 50 U.S.C.A. Section 3033, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) conducts independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and reviews to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integration across the Intelligence Community.

The ICIG does so with integrity, professionalism, and independence. We conduct our mission free of external influence and provide objective assessments, findings, and conclusions, regardless of political or personal consequence.

[emphasis added to quotes]

Presumably the ICIG took an oath of office in which he swore to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

From the ICIG whistleblower webpage:

… It is the duty of all persons in service of the United States, as well as all other the inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which comes to their knowledge.

Keep that last part of the paragraph in mind, we’ll come back to it. From another page on the ICIG website:

A Whistleblower is any individual who provides the right information to the right people. …

The “Right People” are those known as “authorized recipient(s)”. Authorized recipients include: 1) a government supervisor in the employee`s chain of command, up to and including the head of the employing agency; 2) the IG of the employing agency or IC Element; 3) the Director of National Intelligence (DNI); 4) the ICIG; 5) an employee designated by any of the above officials for the purpose of receiving such disclosures. Authorized recipients are those individuals who can correct the wrongdoing that is reported to them. Inherent in that concept is that anyone without a clearance, or who is not in government, would not be an authorized recipient.

Let’s stop here for a moment. Consider that the CIA employee who recently blew the whistle on President Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president first reported his complaint to a lawyer at the CIA, then to an aide to Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI; Adam Schiff), then presumably (upon the advice of Schiff’s aide) to a personal attorney, then finally to ICIG Atkinson, via what process it is not yet exactly clear.

According to the ICIG website, it doesn’t seem as if a congressional staffer is an “authorized recipient.” Nor would be a personal lawyer, depending upon what he’s told, or possibly even a CIA lawyer, unless that lawyer was officially designated to receive such disclosures.

We already know that the whistleblower did not follow the rules, which puts his protections as a whistleblower at risk.

Additionally, according to the plain language on the ICIG’s website, this whistleblower complaint was never valid as an ICIG whistleblower complaint simply because neither Atkinson, nor the acting DNI, nor any member of Congress, in any way, shape, or form could ever be considered as individuals who could “correct the wrongdoing” that President Trump allegedly committed.  

That, in fact, is exactly what the acting DNI told Atkinson when he declined to pass the complaint on to Congress.

Despite that this was never a complaint that should have been considered by the ICIG, Atkinson nevertheless (allegedly) investigated the complaint, reportedly questioning the whistleblower’s anonymous sources, and passed the complaint on to acting DNI Maguire as “credible” and “urgent.”

Now we have learned from Atkinson’s testimony behind closed doors during the Nancy Pelosi Star Chamber Incredible Impeachment Inquiry that Atkinson did not know  when he determined that the complaint was credible and urgent that the whistleblower first had taken his complaint to all of these other people, including only Democrats on the HPSCI, before the complaint was ever made to the ICIG.

The whistleblower form required  the whistleblower to disclose in detail (names and dates) any and all previous disclosures made of his allegations, reportedly under penalty of perjury:

The bottom of the form requires the complainant to swear to the truth of everything asserted or the person could face prosecution for a false statement, a felony that could earn one five years in prison.

The Federalist confirmed with an official that the box about notifying Congress was left empty.

It is not clear exactly when the contact with the aide was made or whether there were potentially other contacts. But the contact with the aide, who told the whistleblower to go the ICIG obviously preceded filling out the form for the ICIG, hence the problem.

Atkinson sent two letters to the HPSCI, which can be read here. The first letter was sent on September 9, 2019. The second letter, sent on September 17, states that the acting DNI had not given the ICIG authorization to inform the HPSCI even basic information about the subject of the complaint. So we are to believe that as of Sept. 17, Schiff should have had no idea what this complaint was about.

Oddly enough, though, on Sept. 9, the very day Atkinson sent the first letter, Schiff and company announced in a press release:

Three House Committees Launch Wide-Ranging Investigation into Trump-Giuliani Ukraine Scheme 

Engel, Schiff, and Cummings Demand Records about Efforts to Pressure Ukraine’s Government to Assist Trump’s Reelection Campaign

Further down in the press release was this nugget:

According to the Ukrainian government, in a July 25, 2019 call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President Trump apparently focused on these investigations, telling President Zelenskyy that he is “convinced the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve [the] image of Ukraine, [and] complete [the] investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA.”  

We all know now that Schiff did already know the content of the so-called whistleblower complaint, but didn’t Atkinson think it curious that Schiff made this announcement on the very day that he first advised Schiff of the whistleblower complaint but not the content of the complaint?

Representative Nunes didn’t know what Schiff knew. Apparently, if we’re to believe Atkinson, he didn’t know either.

It’s curious, isn’t it, that the press release says that the Ukrainian government is the source of the information about President Trump’s phone call with their president? It’s also curious, isn’t it, that one of Schiff’s “staffers” traveled to Ukraine the last week of August. While there, did the staffer interfere in President Trump’s foreign relations with Ukraine? Was the staffer obstructing investigations being carried out by Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham?

How exactly did three Democrats on House committees learn the content of the President’s call with the Ukrainian president from the “Ukrainian government?” Or did they?

In any case, ICIG Atkinson knows now that the whistleblower was not forthcoming when he filed his complaint. He knows the whistleblower deliberately neglected to properly fill out the form, omitting his contacts with HPSCI staff and possibly Democrat members of the committee, as well. Dates and names were required, under penalty of perjury.

Knowing that the whistleblower was less than honest on the complaint form, does Atkinson still consider the complaint “credible?” Does it occur to him that, at best, he was duped by partisans?

How could a seasoned investigator not know or suspect that he was being used by partisans?

What now, Mr. Atkinson?

Are you going to reopen the investigation into this entire whistleblower fiasco, given the consequences that are now playing out to the detriment of our country?

Are you going to blow the whistle on the entire Democrat-devised scheme?

Are you going to declare that the whistleblower, having lied by omission on the form, has no right to immunity or anonymity, especially considering the repercussions that have ensued, to the detriment of all?

Are you going to take steps to see that the whistleblower is disciplined for not following the correct procedure, investigated for possibly passing on classified and privileged information outside the rules of the intelligence community to unauthorized persons, and investigated for potential perjury?

Let’s repeat part of that paragraph from the ICIG website:

… It is the duty of all persons in service of the United States … to give the earliest information to … proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which comes to their knowledge.

To whom has ICIG Atkinson reported the now obvious misconduct/fraud of the so-called whistleblower?

Will there be an investigation into the origins of the scheme to misuse the whistleblower statute to initiate Nancy Pelosi’s Star Chamber Incredible Impeachment Inquiry?

What is the full extent of the role that ICIG Atkinson played in this entire process? Will that be investigated by acting DNI Maguire?

Will the whistleblower be punished for failing to tell the ICIG the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

We the People deserve to know the truth when 6 committee heads are trying to negate the votes of 63,000,000 citizens.

#####