Vicki Rose

Buried in Michael Atkinson’s explanation for why he rewrote the “whistleblower” rules to allow multiple layers of hearsay is a troubling claim, namely that the requirement for firsthand knowledge was unlawful. But saying “The statute required me to change the form from no hearsay to hearsay allowed” simply does not square with the text of 50 U.S. Code § 3033, which is silent on the issue and leaves it to the Inspector General to determine how to assess credibility. The previous rule excluding hearsay was entirely consistent with the statute’s requirement of “credibility”, in the sense that, as in a courtroom, it could reasonably be operationalized as requiring firsthand knowledge or at least supporting documentation, neither of which Ciaramella had. He did not even have specific knowledge of times or locations, only vague generalities. At most, Atkinson could argue he changed the policy as a matter of preference. But he cannot plausibly claim that the law required it. That is just a fake excuse on his part to deflect from the fact that he made this change just as Ciaramella walked in the door, and then covered his tracks both by failing to disclose the change and by backdating it, all of which points to him being part of the impeachment plot from day one.

Back in 2019, we knew that Atkinson had changed the form, but we didn't KNOW whether Ciaramella had used the new form or the old form. It turns out that he had used the old form - the form which required first hand knowledge. The copy of Ciaramella form made public excluded the first two instruction pages in which the firsthand requirement was stated. While Atkinson subsequently changed the form, it was the earlier form that was submitted (sans the two instruction pages.) Atkinson's position was that Ciaramella had first hand knowledge of some things. However, the things that he had first hand knowledge of do not appear to have been especially relevant. Atkinson cited Grassley as authority that secondhand information should be permitted for a whistleblower report. But Atkinson glossed over difference between a non-urgent concern and an urgent concern. This doesn't seem to have been focussed on in discussion. The requirement for firsthand knowledge was reasonable enough for an "urgent" concern. Another point that hasn't been discussed much. In the Solomon articles in March-April 2019 which led into these discussions, there was discussion of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. Trump's contiguous discussion of the CrowdStrike server supports the possibility that Trump was seeking investigation of 2016 election interference - an entirely proper request - as opposed to anticipatory interference in the 2020 election. One of the major misunderstandings of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 is that the interference was initiated by Biden cadres (especially at the Jan 2016 meeting with Ukrainiain prosecutors and Biden cadres while Biden was a leading candidate for nomination) and resulted in the Black Ledger operation that decapitated Paul Manafort as campaign chair in August 2016. The role of Biden cadres in this interference has been clouded by incorrect pointing at Clinton campaign. There was obviously no way that any of Ciaramella, Wilde or Atkinson could have reasonably been sure that the issues raised by Trump weren't related to past 2016 events, as opposed to still distant 2020 events where Biden's nomination was far from guaranteed. The issue of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election surfaced from time to time in the 2019 impeachment hearings, but was ridiculed and shouted down by State Department officials. None of the Republicans or their staff appear to have been well enough informed to focus on the valid issues.

Wow. Ciaramella used the old form, the one that did not allow hearsay. That means the entire impeachment was void ab initio, meaning it was legally dead on arrival. The fact that Atkinson then secretly changed the form and backdated it makes it all exponentially worse.