KMC Forums - NYT: Schiff had a early meeting with whistleblower

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Robtard
HYG:

Let's look at the actual Standard Operating Procedure to see what this whistleblower did wrong for Whistblower reporting for people in the intelligence community:

First Step:

quote:
The employee submits the complaint to the inspector general of the intelligence community.

Second Step:

quote:
The inspector general is required to review it within 14 days and then determines whether the complaint is of �urgent concern,� which is defined as involving conduct �relating to� the �administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information.�

Third Step:

quote:
If the complaint appears credible, the inspector general is required to forward it to the director of national intelligence, who then has seven days to send the complaint and any accompanying information to congressional intelligence oversight committees.

Escalation Step:

quote:
If the inspector general decides it�s not credible, or if he or she does not act on the complaint, the whistleblower can contact the congressional intelligence committees directly but must tell the inspector general and seek guidance from the director of national intelligence to contact the committees securely.

So what really happened? Maguire determined that this was not urgent (not noteworthy to address because it isn't and it is even outside the scope of the intelligence community (the whistleblower is overstepping bounds to "get Trump")) and didn't forward it on.

So here's the the whistleblower did: contact the committee, directly. Under no direction or instruction from Maguire.

This whistleblower did not follow the proper SOP. They wanted to cause a mess because of partisan bias.

Here's more about the proprietariness of the whistleblower's actions:

quote:
Still, legal experts are divided on whether the whistleblower and/or the inspector general could be prosecuted for sharing the complaint with congressional oversight committees, which are qualified to receive classified information.
Goldsmith said criminality depended on what was in the complaint, calling the decision to disclose �political and personally risky.�

�If the IG or the [U.S. government] employee believes the president has engaged in an act of national treachery, they can leak the information, which is a crime, and suffer the consequences,� he wrote, adding that unless Trump�s conduct rose to the level of objective betrayal � where leaking information would be warranted, justifiable and forgivable � then it should remain within the executive branch.

And pro-whistleblower people go on to say that it wasn't criminal but they would/should be fired. So either this person should be fired for improper conduct (which probably will result in credential and clearance revocation: forever) or this person should be criminally prosecuted and fired. That's how bad this is.

Did you know it took 7 minutes for me to find this article to prove my point? The google search results are so skewed in favor of the whistleblower that you cannot actually find a summary of the actual SOP. You find lots of pro-Dem and anti-Trump hits. But not the actual case and actual SOP. Don't tell me there is no media bias.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-what-law-says/