Trump and his supporters spread misinformation about requirements for whistleblowers to file urgent complaints
It began late Friday with a story from the conservative website The Federalist headlined “Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge.” The article claimed “the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.”
“It seems like they are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, the regulatory framework, and the language on one form,” said Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.
The kernel of fact near the center of the conspiracy theory is that there is, indeed, a new version of Form 401 dated August 2019.
A question on the form explicitly anticipates tips based on secondhand information, and asks the whistleblower to check a box: “I have direct and personal knowledge,” or, “I heard about it from others.” The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story.
What the article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018, making it impossible that it was added as an easement for Trump’s whistleblower. The major difference in the fields is that the old form includes three options instead of two, subdividing secondhand sources into outside source and “other employees.”
There’s a reason the form has allowed secondhand reports all along. The requirement for firsthand whistleblowing only is completely made up. [Continue reading…]
Lawyers for a whistleblower who accused Donald Trump of pressuring Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election warn that the President’s threats pose a grave risk to their client’s safety.
Trump meanwhile escalated his attacks on the whistleblower — demanding to meet his “accuser” face to face during a day of rage-filled tweets about the Democratic attempt to impeach him.
The extraordinary spectacle of the President — the titular head of the US legal system — threatening a potential witness in a case against him risks being seen as an attempt to obstruct the investigation. It also cuts against the principle that whistleblowers deserve anonymity and protection, representing another dark twist in an administration that has constantly tested the boundaries of political propriety. [Continue reading…]