Intel Community Uploaded Altered Whistleblower Form 2 Days Before Complaint Released to Public

[Free Vulcan]

If you were to file a whistleblower report with the intelligence community inspector general, up until Sept. 24, the conduct you were blowing the whistle on officially had to be witnessed firsthand.

The “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form — the channel by which one reported such things — specifically stated that any kind of second-hand information about alleged wrongdoing wouldn’t do.

This appears to have changed at 4:25 p.m. on Sept. 24, when a new form was uploaded to the Director of National Intelligence’s website.

https://www.westernjournal.com/intel-community-uploaded-altered-whistleblower-form-2-days-complaint-released-public/

[Cyber Liberty]

So....the form that was filled out by the dog-whistleblower was the one that said, "No hearsay?"

[truth_seeker]

And I ask again, by the authority of precisely who was this change made?

There are "delegations of authority" and "chains of command" in fedgov.

Did Obama-Brennan loyalist holdovers plot and manage to effect such a change or changes?

Any ideas of how to find that?

[austingirl]

Since the "intelligence" community is not answering questions about the change, who has the authority to make them do so?

[Cyber Liberty]

And I ask again, by the authority of precisely who was this change made?

There are "delegations of authority" and "chains of command" in fedgov.

Did Obama-Brennan loyalist holdovers plot and manage to effect such a change or changes?

Any ideas of how to find that?

The question to which the answer would be most enlightening.  There are possibilities here.  One could be the form is not an accurate representation of what the standing regulations permit.  It's also possible some level of bureaucrat made a change, and it may have been the kind of regulation permitted when a law includes the phrase, "The Secretary shall determine..."

If it's the latter, a name will be associated with the bureaucrat who did it.  Something required a sign-off, probably several.  Let's have those names and dates.

[Cyber Liberty]

Since the "intelligence" community is not answering questions about the change, who has the authority to make them do so?

Agreed.  I want to know who did it, even if it was nothing more than a change in the form.

[XenaLee]

If you were to file a whistleblower report with the intelligence community inspector general, up until Sept. 24, the conduct you were blowing the whistle on officially had to be witnessed firsthand.

The “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form — the channel by which one reported such things — specifically stated that any kind of second-hand information about alleged wrongdoing wouldn’t do.

This appears to have changed at 4:25 p.m. on Sept. 24, when a new form was uploaded to the Director of National Intelligence’s website.

https://www.westernjournal.com/intel-community-uploaded-altered-whistleblower-form-2-days-complaint-released-public/

The deep state traitors changed the form after the fact, attempting to cover their @sses on this latest coup attack on Trump.   They really should have thought of it 'before' the complaint was filed for it to be effective.  Now, it just clearly shows how blatant they are in their 'set ups'.

[Cyber Liberty]

The deep state traitors changed the form after the fact, attempting to cover their @sses on this latest coup attack on Trump.   They really should have thought of it 'before' the complaint was filed for it to be effective.  Now, it just clearly shows how blatant they are in their 'set ups'.

The "current revision" is dated September 24, but it does not follow that's the earliest version with the change, nor if the actual regulation was changed.  That would require having a list of revisions, with dates and signatures of approvals.

Such a thing exists, but it also doesn't follow we'll ever get to see it.

[XenaLee]

The "current revision" is dated September 24, but it does not follow that's the earliest version with the change, nor if the actual regulation was changed.  That would require having a list of revisions, with dates and signatures of approvals.

Such a thing exists, but it also doesn't follow we'll ever get to see it.

Well, We the People need to demand to see it.   If anyone ever had any standing to see how the deep state set this up to set Trump up.... that would be us voters ahead of next year's election.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, We the People need to demand to see it.   If anyone ever had any standing to see how the deep state set this up to set Trump up.... that would be us voters ahead of next year's election.

Which "Custodian of Records," I.E. "bureaucrat," can we expect to release that?   

For that matter, who would even think to request that information?

[XenaLee]

Which "Custodian of Records," I.E. "bureaucrat," can we expect to release that?   

For that matter, who would even think to request that information?

Maybe we need to light up the DC phones, faxes and "twitter" to request that info.   I'm extremely curious, as well.

[Sanguine]

The "current revision" is dated September 24, but it does not follow that's the earliest version with the change, nor if the actual regulation was changed.  That would require having a list of revisions, with dates and signatures of approvals.

Such a thing exists, but it also doesn't follow we'll ever get to see it.

That previous version notes it was approved on May 24, 2018. The new form, meanwhile, states it was revised sometime in August 2019 but it doesn’t specify a date.

[Cyber Liberty]

    That previous version notes it was approved on May 24, 2018. The new form, meanwhile, states it was revised sometime in August 2019 but it doesn’t specify a date.

There has to be a log of changes, in order to establish a pedigree for a document.  That's what we will probably never see, because it has approvers' names in addition to dates.  Everybody will want to deny responsibility for it.

A good policy has many fathers, but a bad one is an orphan.

[sneakypete]

If I were the suspicious type......

[sneakypete]

Which "Custodian of Records," I.E. "bureaucrat," can we expect to release that?   

For that matter, who would even think to request that information?

@Cyber Liberty

Good thing Trump ain't the kind of guy that would find out about the details of something like this and hold a grudge,huh?

Or the kind of guy that would torment them daily  with HINTS that "I know a little something and you need to come clean" before exposing their scheme,naming names,and blowing them out of the water just  before the elections.

Oh,YEAH!

[aligncare]

And the only reason this has become common knowledge is because Donald Trump gave it national exposure. You won’t hear anything about it listening to tick tick tick, 60 minutes of CNNBCBS.

It took the Donald’s tweet to raise awareness about another CIA plot to take down a president. As if the FBI’s attempted take down of Trump wasn’t enough. Remember, it was President Truman that warned us about the potential dangers of a rogue CIA.

Worried yet?