The Broken Whistle is a thrilling expose unveiling a Deep State bent on destroying dissent and preserving its power. It is an unapologetic chronicle of one manâs fight for justiceâa clarion call that thunders through the darkest corners of power. Prepare to be captivated by Ortaâs unflinching courage as he peels back the layers of deception, exposing a broken whistleblower system that has forsaken its sacred duty.
âNow here I was, post-Snowden, relying on a system President Obama, Congress, and IC leaders had touted as successful and functional. But was it truly working? My case exposed it as nothing more than a sham. Would the CIA and the IC attempt to rectify the situation? Did they genuinely desire to fix the broken system? Or would they persist in employing their illegal bullying tactics to silence whistleblowers? I was determined to take action, offering them an opportunity to correct their behavior.â âFrom The Broken Whistle
The Broken Whistle is a thrilling expose unveiling a Deep State bent on destroying dissent and preserving its power. It is an unapologetic chronicle of one manâs fight for justiceâa clarion call that thunders through the darkest corners of power. Prepare to be captivated by Ortaâs unflinching courage as he peels back the layers of deception, exposing a broken whistleblower system that has forsaken its sacred duty.
âNow here I was, post-Snowden, relying on a system President Obama, Congress, and IC leaders had touted as successful and functional. But was it truly working? My case exposed it as nothing more than a sham. Would the CIA and the IC attempt to rectify the situation? Did they genuinely desire to fix the broken system? Or would they persist in employing their illegal bullying tactics to silence whistleblowers? I was determined to take action, offering them an opportunity to correct their behavior.â âFrom The Broken Whistle
CHAPTER 1: Weaponized Whistleblowing: The Trump Impeachment (Sept. 2019)
âTruth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.â
âImmanuel Kant
On September 18, the Washington Post reported on an intelligence community whistleblower who alleged that President Donald J. Trump had broken laws during a telephone call with a foreign leader.[1] The complaint alleged that President Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in exchange for military aid and a White House meeting.
The so-called âUkraine whistleblowerâ filed what is known as an Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) Lawful Disclosure. In its simplest terms, such a disclosure sets in motion a mechanism by which the inspector general determines if it meets the criteria of an âurgent concernâ under its congressional authorizations. If so, the inspector general then sends it to the two principal Congressional Intelligence Oversight committees, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).
One important catch is that the inspector general must convey the disclosure to the head of the agency no later than two weeks after receiving it:
Not later than the end of the 14-calendar day period beginning on the date of receipt from an employee of a complaint or information under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible. If the Inspector General determines that the complaint or information appears credible, the Inspector General shall, before the end of such period, transmit the complaint or information to the Director. [2]
The agency head then has only one week to forward it to the oversight committees:
Upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector General [. . .] the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the intelligence committees.â[3]
Observe that these instructions use the imperative term âshall,â and not the permissive term âmay.â When used in a legal context, the word âshallâ precedes a command that requires mandatory action and offers no room for discretion.
Itâs also worth noting that only the agency head has the authority to approve and send the disclosures to Congress, not the inspector general. The so-called âUkraine Whistleblowerâ sent the disclosure to the Office of the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community (ICIG). The language used in these laws is unequivocal, with the goal to forestall senior-level âlone wolvesâ from abusing their authority and sidestepping measures that safeguard the integrity of the process.
****
The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 created the process for whistleblowers to make a legal disclosure (i.e., âICWPA Lawful Disclosureâ or âUrgent Concern Disclosureâ). The act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton on October 20, 1998, becoming Public Law 105-272.[4] The ICWPA requires a lawful disclosure to be sent to the SSCI and HPSCI by no later than the third week of its filing with the inspector general.
The purpose of creating IGsâ offices through the Inspector General Act of 1978 was to establish âwatchdogâ entities that oversee executive branch US government departments and agencies.[5] Their mission is to âconduct independent and objective audits, investigations and inspections; prevent and detect waste, fraud and abuse; promote economy, effectiveness and efficiency; review pending legislation and regulation, and; and keep the agency head and Congress fully and currently informed.â[6]
By law, these offices are designated to oversee whistleblowersâ allegations of wrongdoing and are responsible for protecting the whistleblowers themselves. Furthermore, they are tasked with conducting investigations into cases of whistleblower retaliation.
Any lawful disclosure through the ICWPA process involves significant legal issues, including whether the inspector general and agency head have jurisdiction over the allegation. In this case, the disclosure was taken to the IGIC, led by the Honorable Michael K. Atkinson, and the agency head was Acting DNI Joseph Maguire. The second condition of a lawful disclosure was equally significantâdid it fit the criteria for a matter of âurgent concernâ under IWCPA? If the lawful disclosure met these requirements, the ICWPA process had to be followed.
****
IG Atkinson claimed to have found the August 12 lawful disclosure to be âcredible and troubling enough to be considered a matter of âurgent concern.ââ[7]
But Acting DNI Maguire determined the disclosure did not meet the urgent concern criteria necessary for DNI or ICIG authorities to submit it as a credible complaint.[8] This conclusion came after the DNI Office of General Counsel (DNI/OGC) had consulted with the US Department of Justice (DOJ).[9] The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (DOJ/OLC) ruled that:
1. The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any US government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community. Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complaint received secondhand.
2. The alleged misconduct is not an âurgent concernâ within the meaning of the statute because it does not concern âthe funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activityâ under the authority of the DNI.
3. Should the DNI or the ICIG receive a credible complaint of alleged criminal conduct that does not involve an âurgent concern,â the appropriate action is to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, rather than report to the intelligence committees.[10] [11]
In summary, the disclosure was not considered a âcredible urgent concernâ under the authorities of the DNI, and therefore did not satisfy the threshold for a lawful disclosure under ICWPA. As a result, Acting DNI Maguire did not send the disclosure to Congress. However, IG Atkinson disagreed with the DOJ/OLC ruling, leading to a standoff.[12]
Amid the impasse, Andrew Bakaj, the attorney representing the whistleblower, met on September 9 with a lawyer employed by Congressman Adam Schiff (CA-D), the Chairman of the HPSCI. Bakaj shared some details about the withheld ICWPA, leaving breadcrumbs for the other lawyer to follow. As the matter was still being evaluated, Bakaj could only disclose the existence of the complaint and not much more.
During their meeting, they were interrupted by a knock on the conference room door. The HPSCI lawyer answered and walked back to the table with a letter heâd been handed.[13]
The letter was from IG Atkinson, informing Schiff of the ICWPA whistleblower allegations. Atkinsonâs letter did not provide any specific details about the complaint but mentioned he had originally forwarded it to Acting DNI Maguire on August 26. In his letter, Atkinson acknowledged Maguire had acted in good faith when he determined that the complaint did not meet the criteria of a credible urgent concern. However, Atkinson also stated that he would inform Congress about the matter.[14]
By bypassing Acting DNI Maguire and informing Congress, IG Atkinson was engaging in unauthorized âfurther actionâ regarding an anonymous disclosure, which violates ICWPAâs guidelines that allow only the agency head to take such actions.
****
Weeks earlier, in late July, an attorney employed by Congressman Schiffâs HPSCI had a meeting with a CIA official who had previously worked at the White House. During the meeting, the CIA official disclosed information to the attorney about President Trumpâs supposed wrongdoing, particularly that he had engaged in something âhighly unethicalâ in relation to Ukraine. The attorney provided guidance to the CIA official on submitting an ICWPA complaint and recommended that they seek the services of an attorney and speak with the ICIG.[15] The submission of the ICWPA complaint did not come as a surprise to Congressman Schiff and his HPSCI staff. In fact, they were eagerly expecting it, poised for action, and ready to pounce upon its arrival.
Congressman Schiff characterized Acting DNI Maguireâs decision to withhold the ICWPA disclosure from intel committee oversight as âunprecedented.â In a letter sent on September 10, he demanded Maguire immediately forward the complaint to Congress, an insistence that was echoed by other congressional Democrats who were eager to review the disclosure.[16]
Whether or not they intended it, IG Atkinson and the ICIG were suddenly embroiled in a political maelstrom, with news of the disclosure being swiftly leaked to the media. Complicating matters, Atkinson had provided congressional Democrats with a potent weapon to use against President Trump.
A media frenzy ensued. By September 21, the mainstream media and social media platforms were awash with sketchy information about the Ukraine whistleblowerâs accusations against President Trump, as well as concerns surrounding the so-called âsuppressedâ ICWPA disclosure and its classification as an âurgent concern.â In the absence of confirmed facts, the reports quickly found their way into a convenient narrative for the presidentâs critics, leading to calls for his impeachment within days.[17]
As a former intelligence community employee with nearly two decades of experience, I was intrigued by this case involving a whistleblower who had made an ICWPA disclosure. During my tenure at the ICIG from 2015 to 2017, I had worked closely on a number of whistleblower issues, serving as part of a team of âsubject matter expertsâ (SMEs) and dedicating countless hours to studying matters related to intelligence community whistleblowing.
Moreover, I had been a whistleblower myself within the same community, but my treatment had been markedly different.
****
My experience with the ICWPA process began in the spring of 2017, while I was still working at the CIA. I filed a disclosure in April and May 2017 with the acting IG for the ICIG, Wayne G. Stone. My disclosures were never processed, and my follow-up efforts in July received no response. The ICIG suppressed my firsthand lawful disclosures, and they instructed me in July 2018 to go through the submission process again. I followed their instructions in February and March 2019, each time filing the required âUrgent Concern Disclosure Formâ (ICWPA Form 401), only to find that they refused to process the lawful disclosures. Through this frustrating ordeal, I gained intimate knowledge of how the process functionedâand, more crucially, how it failed to function.
****
On February 24, 2019, I submitted Form 401 providing firsthand details on the abuses of authority and gross mismanagement by CIA/IG to adhere to Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) independence standards, failure to protect whistleblowers alleging reprisal, failure to conduct independent investigations, indifference on reprisal issues, plotting to weaken reprisal protections, and asking not to implement PPD-19.
On March 16, 2019, I submitted Form 401 providing firsthand details of the ICIG and CIA suppressing my April/May 2017 and July 2017 ICWPAs. Including details of the CIAâs refusal to send contents of the ICWPA to Congress.
On March 17, 2019, I submitted Form 401 providing firsthand details of the serious threat of indirect fire rocket attacks at a US base in Afghanistan, and of the reckless behaviors by the COB endangering the lives of her employees during my time deployed December 2014 through February 2015. The ICWPA disclosure included significant specifics on the actual threatâspecific and significant endangerment of employee lives.
On March 19, 2019, I submitted Form 401 with firsthand details of the deployment of psychiatric symptomatic patients to CIA war zones, which posed a clear and present danger to CIA and IC personnel, severely undermining the mission. The CIA deployed these dangerous persons, keeping some of them deployed through the treatment by the CIA Office of Medical Services (OMS) which medicated these persons with psychiatric drugs to help them cope. These psychiatrically distressed persons have placed lives of personnel at risk, have posed serious challenges to meet mission needs, have severely undermined the ability of the CIA to deploy qualified officers to war zones. And in one case led to a suicide of one of these mentally distressed officers deployed to a war zone.
These were ICWPA disclosures submitted to the ICIG per their request, and based on the original ICWPA disclosures I had submitted in April, May, and July 2017. However, my original ICWPA disclosures were sent in the classified computer system full of shocking details. All classified, not allowing the outside world to see the extravagant corruption that runs deep in the CIA. My firsthand disclosures included serious failures by CIA/EEO and CIA/IG to comply with the letter of the law on EEO and whistleblower matters.
This time, the ICIG responded immediately on 25 March with, âThe ICIG has determined that your submission does not fit within the parameters of the ICWPA as you are not an âemployee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.ââ While employed, they suppressed and refused to file my ICWPAs. Then, after I was fired for lawful whistleblowing, they used my termination as an excuse to further suppress my disclosures. In comparison, the Ukraine whistleblower received immediate attention from the ICIG and Congress, which reeked of favoritism and impropriety. The situation had an unmistakably foul odor.
****
Months earlier, I had moved out of the Washington, D.C., area and was now living in Tulsa, Oklahoma, enrolled at Rhema Bible Training College. Although I attempted to focus on my classes the morning of September 23, the gravity of the whistleblowerâs claims proved too great to ignore. Upon further investigation, the evidence undoubtedly showed that the Ukraine scandal was being weaponized to attack President Trump.
After re-reading my copies of the ICWPA form multiple times, scrutinizing every word, I was shocked by the exceptions made to accommodate the Ukraine whistleblower. They had tried to silence my whistle before, but there were other ways to get the word out.
With little left to lose, I decided to tweet my observations to the world.
Composing my first-ever Twitter thread, I carefully detailed how the Ukraine whistleblower was given preferential treatment and how the lawful process was overlooked for political reasons. This was not an impulsive reaction or a tweet I sent lightly; it was a purposeful, well-thought-out statement that I had devoted significant time and energy to crafting.
Recognizing the gravity of the controversy, I was resolute in providing an accurate account of what transpired. To ensure complete veracity, I scrutinized every word, checked and rechecked my work, saved it in multiple drafts, reflected on it, and even waited until I got home after class to finish it. It wasnât until after one final check that I finally felt confident enough to press âsendâ at 2:21 that afternoon.[18]
This was my thread over a series of six tweets:
1. ICIG ICWPA Form 401 dated 24 May 2018 requires âurgent concernsâ to be about an âintelligence activity,â be âreliable first-hand knowledge,â and not be âsecond-hand knowledge.â
2. If the recent case was of a whistleblower who disclosed âsecond-hand knowledge,â it failed to meet the ICIGâs own criteria to process ICWPAs [disclosures]. And if it also was about executive privileged information of the president, it was not about âintelligence activities.â
3. Again, another ICIG failure in processing an ICWPA. So the real question why is the ICIG still failing to properly address IC whistleblower issues? Proving that IC is against President Trump? IC usurping POTUS Constitutional powers on foreign policy?
4. The IC, ICIG, and CIA failed with the Bakaj case which is essentially the same for the outstanding Kaplan, Reidy, Pars, and Meyer cases. Worse is how Chairman Schiff and other Democrats have politicized this issue, but done nothing for Bakaj, Kaplan, Reidy, Pars, and Meyer.
5. The ICIG and Congress have let it be known that they are clueless on IC whistleblower issues and prefer to play politics. We know that ICIG had failed to address legitimate ICWPAs with the Reidy, Meyer, and Pars case.
6. If Chairman Schiff and Democrats are serious about IC whistleblower issues, it is time for them to do something about the Bakaj, Kaplan, Reidy, Pars, and Meyer cases and quit playing politics with IC whistleblowers. Meanwhile, Chairman Burr and Ranking Member Warner must act.
****
While Congressman Schiff had referred to Maguireâs decision as âunprecedented,â it was actually the unparalleled level of political support given to the Ukraine whistleblower by Congress and ICIG that unequivocally deserves such a description. As someone who has seen numerous credible whistleblowers treated unfairly, I felt compelled to speak out against the egregious hypocrisy and favoritism displayed towards this particular individual.
National Editor for the Epoch Times Ivan Pentchoukov summed it up beautifully:
The anonymous whistleblowerâs complaint about President Donald Trumpâs call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stands out as an anomaly compared to the cases of the nearly 200 whistleblowers who not only faced retribution after duly filing their complaints, but have had to wait for an average of more than two years after they complained about the reprisals.[19]
Make no mistake: the Ukraine whistleblowerâs case was an extraordinary event. It was a calculated strike launched by President Trumpâs political foes and Deep State adversaries, who wielded the whistleblowerâs disclosure like a precision-guided missile aimed squarely at their target. Their end goal was to set the stage for impeaching the president, and they moved with unprecedented speed and efficiency to achieve this objective. Along the way, they showed unwavering support for the Ukraine whistleblower, treating every detail of his account as an indisputable fact.
The double standards were impossible to ignore. While the Ukraine whistleblower was given every protection and safeguard possible, other IC whistleblowers were left to fend for themselves. My ICWPAs were suppressed and unanswered, leading to more reprisals. And worse, the ICIG and Congress did nothing to help when the CIA began retaliating against me in late 2017 and 2018. My attempts to seek assistance from Congress went unanswered, and Chairman Schiff ignored letters from my attorney. Other whistleblowers in similar situations faced the same fate. Yet the Ukraine whistleblower was treated like royalty, and became an essential player in the impeachment narrative.
One particular item in Form 401 stands out:
Further, while an allegation might constitute a technical disclosure, ICIG will not process minor or trivial [emphasis added] matters as ICWPA submissions.
Apparently, any issue that did not advance the Deep Stateâs agenda was deemed âminor or trivialâ by their standards. Meanwhile, the Ukraine whistleblower was carefully chosen as their perfect weapon to take down President Trump, while whistleblowers whose disclosures did not serve their political games were discarded like yesterdayâs trash. It was a futile exercise. I imagined myself blowing a broken whistle, unable to make even the faintest of sounds. It was all squandered breath, blowing and going nowhere.
The Ukraine whistleblower was treated like royalty, while the rest of us genuine IC whistleblowers were left out in the cold. We received no assistance from the ICIG or Congress, faced severe reprisals, and were denied the protections that we were entitled to under PPD-19. The IGs failed to conduct timely and adequate reprisal investigations into our treatment, and there was no congressional oversight to hold them accountable.
As an IC whistleblower, I experienced firsthand the devastating consequences of being deemed politically disposable to the Deep State. I was summarily fired because of my whistleblowing, which not only sent a chilling message to silence future potential whistleblowers but also had a profound psychological impact on me. It was as if a hammer had crushed my whistle into a million pieces, undermining the very purpose of the ICWPA and PPD-19 to protect whistleblowers from retaliatory actions.
****
The CIA and ICIGâs retaliation against me was relentless, and it didnât end with my termination. Their disregard for their own procedures seemed to know no bounds, as they placed every conceivable obstacle in my path. The fact that my firing may have been in retaliation for my whistleblowing did not even come into consideration. A discernible pattern had emerged, a calculated tactic employed again and again against whistleblowers. Stripping me of my employee status now gave them a ready-made justification to reject my ICWPAs. I was incensed, and I couldnât help but think about other genuine whistleblowers who had been fired and were going through a similar situation. It was evident that the process was crafted to discourage genuine whistleblowers and force them to give up.
It was becoming more and more apparent that the ICIG was playing favorites. Despite my credible and firsthand disclosures from a CIA employee, they were ignored, while they went above and beyond to support a hearsay complaint from a non-IC employee who happened to be politically expedient. This should have been a clear warning sign to those in charge of oversight.
The ICIGâs decision to prioritize a secondhand complaint against President Trump while ignoring my firsthand disclosures from a CIA employee was a troubling display of bias. This was made worse by the fact that the Ukraine complaint centered on a non-intelligence matter, while my disclosures raised serious concerns about IC violations. It was an unmistakable, fraudulent, and abusive misuse of the ICWPA process.
On September 27, the political crisis reached a fever pitch, with Democrats calling for impeachment and the media unleashing a barrage of attacks from all sides. Recognizing what was going on, I took to Twitter once again and added screenshots of the form to my earlier thread, urging others to come forward with any information they had about potential abuses of power:
âThe ICIG also exceeded its authorities, thus violated the law. An illegal ICWPA and ICIG violation of law is nothing more than a Deep State (IC) attack against President Trump to unseat and as Democrats want, to impeach.â[20]
****
Twitter users Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) and Sean Davis (@seanmdav) from The Federalist, reached out to me for a copy of the form, which I promptly provided. Furthermore, I shared with Davis the DOJ/OLC ruling along with two comments, which highlighted how the ICWPA form had been changed to accommodate the Ukraine whistleblowerâs secondhand hearsay, and how it generally failed to meet ICWPA criteria.
After delving into the matter, McIntyre ascertained that the ICIG had revised the form simultaneously with the whistleblowerâs allegations. That day, Davis published an article entitled âIntel Community Secretly Eliminated Requirement of Direct Whistleblower Knowledge,â exposing the truth.
Davisâs explosive report lit up the news cycle, uncovering an alleged plot to manipulate the ICWPA to impeach Trump. Major TV networks covered the story, featuring interviews with Davis.[21] President Trump himself tweeted in response, âWOW, they got caught. End the Witch Hunt now!â[22]
On September 30, the ICIG admitted they had changed the procedures after they had received the allegation from the Ukraine whistleblower.[23] The alterations made to the form suggested that it had been done deliberately to permit the secondhand hearsay claim against President Trump.[24] [25] Congressional Republican leaders pounced on it, demanding answers. Republican Leaders Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Devin Nunes (R-CA) sent a letter to the ICIG demanding answers by no later than October 23.
The public outcry that ensued after I revealed the form changes did not come as a surprise to me, and it was imperative to bring the truth to light. I was glad to have played a role in exposing the truth. The actions of the ICIG and Congress, who used the ICWPA process as a weapon to target President Trump, represented a significant breach of public trust.
It was a blatant effort by federal employees, political appointees, and congressional members to eliminate a political opponent, which is unacceptable. The hostility towards President Trump provided the impetus for alarming abuses of power that had never been witnessed in our constitutional republic, and if left unchecked, presented a clear and present danger.
****
Adherence to the chain of command is imperative for all US government employees and political appointees. As members of the executive branch, they work for the US president, but this does not mean that the president is subservient to the federal bureaucracy. However, both the president and the federal bureaucracy are accountable to the law and must obey it. And more importantly, the executive branch lacks the power to create or modify laws through its bureaucratic authority.
Take, for instance, the role of an ambassador posted in a foreign country. The ambassadorâs responsibility is to act as a representative of their country, advancing the policies outlined by their government. It is not permissible for an ambassador to act as an independent agent pursuing their own objectives. Such conduct constitutes a betrayal of trust and could lead to dismissal. This holds true for all Executive Branch political appointees and civil servants.
This standard became a mantra that was repeatedly drilled into me during my eighteen-and-a-half-year tenure in the US government. Our responsibility was to serve the president and his administration. As civil servants, we did not shape policies or make recommendations. Instead, we carried out the orders given to us by our leaders appointed by the president. If we disagreed, we either followed through or resigned. Moreover, civil servants are barred from engaging in political activities that support political parties or candidates. The Hatch Act prohibits any political activity by federal employees, and violating it can lead to termination, disbarment, or other severe consequences, such as suspension without pay.
The Ukraine whistleblowerâs ICWPA disclosure largely centered on a disagreement about foreign relations and not intelligence activities. The individuals making firsthand claims were not part of the intelligence community but instead were either political appointees, US government employees, or US military officers who were working on foreign relations and national security issues in the presidentâs Executive Office and were detailed to the National Security Council (NSC). Since they were not eligible to submit an ICWPA disclosure, their accusations were passed along indirectly as hearsay to an IC member who was authorized by law to receive them. According to reports, the whistleblower might have been an IC employee who was assigned to the NSC.
Despite the possible consequences, the ICIG persevered in arguing that the ICWPA disclosure was an âurgent concernâ under both their own and the DNIâs authority, even with the risk of causing political fallout and disruption. On September 17, the ICIG wrote a letter to DOJ/OLC Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel, stating that they disagreed with OLCâs assessment that the complainantâs allegations were not an âurgent concernâ and requesting that OLC reevaluate its decision.[26] The ICIG attempted to conceal its modifications by changing the form and backdating it, but on October 4, IG Atkinson refused to answer Congress when questioned about why the backdating had taken place.[27]
A second whistleblower suddenly emerged following the release of a hearsay complaint, asserting that they had direct knowledge of the allegations. Between October 4 and 6, reports emerged indicating that this individual had not yet made a lawful ICWPA disclosure, but was reportedly considering doing so.[28] [29] These developments suggested that the whistleblowersâ motivations were driven by a desire to impeach President Trump, rather than to report any legal violations.
****
Speaking on Fox Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo on September 29, former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey characterized ICIG Atkinsonâs actions as those of a âLone Ranger,â and that he had mishandled the complaint and lacked jurisdiction.[30] But reinforcements came to the rescue, with the most remarkable event occurring on October 22.
The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) issued a public statement in support of IG Atkinson, rebuking the DOJ/OLC opinion as a threat to proper oversight and calling for it to be withdrawn or modified. In their letter to Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel, CIGIE concurred with ICIGâs assessment that the OLC opinion was legally and politically flawed.[31] The Chairperson of CIGIE, Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, the DOJ inspector general, led the charge with sixty-seven signatories joining him. The letter was âa sharp rebuke of the OLC opinion and sign of solidarity from the officials who act as independent watchdogs of government agencies.â[32]
It was an act of extraordinary hubris. The entire US Federal Government inspector general (IG) community called for the DOJ/OLC to rescind its ruling, essentially attempting to rewrite the law in its own image. This blatant politicization revealed a stunning lack of independence and an evident desire to take part in what amounted to be a bureaucratic coup dâĂ©tat aimed at toppling President Trump.
Impeachment was never intended by the Founding Fathers to be used as a tool for removing a president solely based on policy disagreements. Unfortunately, some federal government officials ignored this principle and attempted to remove a duly elected president, posing a severe threat to the constitutional republic. If successful, this could have resulted in a political oligarchy resembling the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome.[33]
Despite the Founding Fathersâ intentions, congressional Democrats weaponized the IC whistleblower process by leveraging the Ukraine whistleblower to impeach President Trump, motivated by their strong hostility towards him. IG Atkinsonâs involvement in the matter facilitated their actions, leading to the prospect of impeachment based on exceptionally dubious allegations against the president.
****
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would initiate a Congressional Impeachment Inquiry on September 24.[34] It was spearheaded by the HPSCI and supported by the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee.[35] This extensive endeavor involved over thirty-six congressional staffers issuing many subpoenas, conducting over one hundred hours of testimony from seventeen witnesses, and holding seven public hearings with over thirty hours of testimony. [36]
On December 18, the House of Representatives voted in favor of impeaching President Trump on two articles:
· Article One: âAbuse of Power,â with a vote of 230 to 197.
· Article Two: âObstruction of Congress,â with a vote of 229 to 198.
They then sent the impeachment articles to the US Senate for a trial.[37]
The Senate trial, which took place from January 16 to February 5, 2020, ended with an acquittal of President Trump on both articles. The Senate vote followed party lines, and sixty-seven votes were required to remove the president from office.[38] Despite being impeached, President Trump emerged from the ordeal more emboldened, exercising his presidential power with greater confidence and less restraint than ever.[39]
The IC whistleblower process suffered a major setback and a blow to its credibility because of its politicization, with IG Atkinson and two NSC officers testifying for the impeachment hearings being the losers. An attorney who worked with Bakaj to represent other whistleblowers, Mark Zaid, later conceded that the Democratsâ support for the whistleblower was merely âa partisan exercise to get Trump,â which accurately captured the underlying motive behind their actions.[40]
The dismissal of IG Atkinson on April 3, 2020 by President Trump was within his rights as a presidential appointee. The president cited a lack of faith in Atkinsonâs capacity to fulfill essential roles as an inspector general, including promoting the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of federal programs and activities. [41] According to one commentator, Atkinson had erroneously conferred whistleblower status to an unnamed intelligence officer, rendering him a âfake whistleblower.â [42]
And on April 4, CIGIE wasted no time in issuing a statement through Chairman Michael Horowitz applauding IG Atkinsonâs handling of the Ukraine whistleblower complaint, which they deemed to be âby the bookâ and in full compliance with the law.[43] [44]
With all due respect to CIGIE Chairman Horowitz, I must express my disagreement with his optimistic view of the IC whistleblower system. From my perspective, and that of many others, it is clear that the system operates in a state of profound dysfunction and not âby the book,â failing to follow the letter of the law. It is aided and abetted by a complicit Congress that fails to hold the inspectors general and these agencies accountable for whistleblower reprisals. Such failures empower these agencies to take reprisals with impunity, knowing they will never be held to account for the lives theyâve wrecked through their tyrannical abuse of power.
The events that unfolded in this particular episode serve as a glaring illustration of how political opportunists, with their connections within the intelligence community, brazenly wield their power to enact retaliatory measures against whistleblowers, all while enjoying the cheerleading support of the media. It lays bare the alarming absence of consequences for their actions, revealing a system where accountability is a mere illusion. This failure to hold such individuals accountable further perpetuates a lawless Deep State, with Congress failing in its duty to restore order and uphold the principles of justice.
[1] Miller, Greg, Ellen Nakashima, and Shane Harris. âTrumpâs Communications with Foreign Leader Are Part of Whistleblower Complaint That Spurred Standoff between Spy Chief and Congress, Former Officials Say.â Washington Post, September 19, 2019. Accessed April 25, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trumps-communications-with-foreign-leader-are-part-of-whistleblower-complaint-that-spurred-standoff-between-spy-chief-and-congress-former-officials-say/2019/09/18/df651aa2-da60-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html.
[2] Public Law 105-272, § 702(a).
[3] Ibid.
[4] âActionsâH.R.3694â105th Congress (1997-1998): Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.â Accessed February 26, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/3694/all-actions.
[5] âInspector General Act of 1978.â Accessed February 26, 2023, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title5/title5a/node20&edition=prelim.
[6] âFrequently Asked Questions.â Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency; IGnet. Accessed February 26, 2023, https://www.ignet.gov/content/frequently-asked-questions.
[7] Miller, Greg, Ellen Nakashima, and Shane Harris. âTrumpâs Communications with Foreign Leader Are Part of Whistleblower Complaint That Spurred Standoff between Spy Chief and Congress, Former Officials Say.â Washington Post, September 19, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trumps-communications-with-foreign-leader-are-part-of-whistleblower-complaint-that-spurred-standoff-between-spy-chief-and-congress-former-officials-say/2019/09/18/df651aa2-da60-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html.
[8] Nakashima, Ellen, Shane Harris, Greg Miller, and Carol D. Leonnig. âWhistleblower Complaint about President Trump Involves Ukraine, According to Two People Familiar with the Matter.â Washington Post, September 20, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/whistleblower-complaint-about-president-trump-involves-ukraine-according-to-two-people-familiar-with-the-matter/2019/09/19/07e33f0a-daf6-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html.
[9] Klitenic, Jason. âLetter from Office of the Director of National Intelligence Office of General Counsel.â Document Cloud, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, September 13, 2019, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6419391/Sept-13-Letter.pdf.
[10] Engel, Steven A. âMemorandum for Jason Klitenic General Counsel, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.â Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, September 3, 2019, https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/OLC_Memorandum_on_Urgent_Concern.pdf.
[11] Engel, Steven A. ââUrgent Concernâ Determination by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.â US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Rulings. US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, September 3, 2019, https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1205711/download.
[12] Nakashima, Ellen, Shane Harris, Greg Miller, and Carol D. Leonnig. âWhistleblower Complaint about President Trump Involves Ukraine, According to Two People Familiar with the Matter.â Washington Post, September 20, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/whistleblower-complaint-about-president-trump-involves-ukraine-according-to-two-people-familiar-with-the-matter/2019/09/19/07e33f0a-daf6-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html.
[13] Bade, Rachael, and Karoun Demirjian. 2022. âChapter 7: âWhistleblower,â â in Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congressâs Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump, essay. William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.
[14] Janowski, Elizabeth. 2020. âTimeline: Trump Impeachment Inquiry.â NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, February 5, 2020. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/timeline-trump-impeachment-inquiry-n1066691.
[15] Bade, Rachael, and Karoun Demirjian. 2022. âChapter 7: âWhistleblower,â â in Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congressâs Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump, essay. William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.
[16] Schiff, Adam. 2019. â10 September 2019 Letter to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire.â Document Cloud. US House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, September 10, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6409558-20190910-Chm-Schiff-Letter-to-Acting-Dni-Maguire.
[17] Perano, Ursula. 2019. âNancy Pelosi Hints at Impeachment over Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Complaint.â Axios, September 22, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.axios.com/2019/09/22/nancy-pelosi-trump-ukraine-whistleblower-complaint.
[18] Orta, Pedro Israel (@pedroisraelorta). 2019. âICIG ICWPA Form 401 dated 24 May 2018 requires âurgent concernsâ to be about an âintelligence activity,â be âreliable first-hand knowledge,â and not be âsecond-hand knowledge.ââ Twitter, September 23, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://twitter.com/PedroIsraelOrta/status/1176215076468117504.
[19] Pentchoukov, Ivan. 2019. âUkraine Complaint Is Anomaly in System That Repeatedly Failed Whistleblowers.â Epoch Times, November 7, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.theepochtimes.com/ukraine-complaint-is-an-anomaly-in-a-system-that-repeatedly-failed-whistleblowers_3138733.html.
[20] Orta, Pedro Israel (@pedroisraelorta). 2019. â7) The ICIG also exceeded its authorities, thus violated the law. An illegal ICWPA and ICIG violation of law is nothing more than a Deep State (IC) attack against President Trump to unseat and as Democrats want, to impeach.â https://t.co/in3u6h2hqf.â Twitter, September 27, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://twitter.com/PedroIsraelOrta/status/1177644027920998404.
[21] Fox and Friends. 2019. âNew Report Claims Intelligence Community Revised Its Whistleblower Complaint Form.â Fox News network, September 30, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.foxnews.com/video/6090608613001.
[22] Trump, Donald J. (@realdonaldtrump). 2019. âWOW, they got caught. End the Witch Hunt now!â Twitter, September 28, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1178076844135976966.
[23] Clark, Chrissy. 2019. âIntel IG Admits It Secretly Erased âFirst-Hand Informationâ Requirement.â Federalist, October 1, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/30/intel-ig-admits-it-secretly-erased-first-hand-information-requirement-in-august/.
[24] Dobbs, Lou. 2019. âSean Davis Responds to the ICIG Statement about the Whistleblower Complaint.â YouTube video (Lou Dobbs Tonight interview of Sean Davis on Fox News network). Maura Dowling Channel, October 1, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeAgTtGtz1M.
[25] Davis, Sean. 2019. âICIG Admission of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions.â Federalist, October 3, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01/intel-community-admission-of-whistleblower-changes-raises-explosive-new-questions/.
[26] Atkinson, Michael K. 2019. âICIG Letter to DOJ OLC 17 September 2019.â Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Office of the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, September 17, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/ICIG_letter_to_OLC.pdf.
[27] Davis, Sean. 2019. âIG Stonewalled Congress on Backdated Whistleblower Rule Changes.â Federalist, October 10, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/07/intel-community-ig-stonewalling-congress-on-backdated-whistleblower-rule-changes/.
[28] Meek, James Gordon, and Anne Flaherty. 2019. â2nd Whistleblower Comes Forward After Speaking with IG: Attorney.â ABC News, October 6, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396.
[29] BBC News. 2019. âTrump Impeachment: Second Whistleblower Emerges.â October 7, 2019. BBC News, Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49953225.
[30] Mahncke, Hans (@hansmahncke). âFormer AG Mukasey: ICIG Atkinson acted as Lone Ranger, didnât handle complaint properly, had no jurisdiction.â Twitter, September 29, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1178359793888759808.
[31] Horowitz, Michael E., and Allison C. Lerner. â22 October 2019 CIGIE Letter to DOJ OLC.â Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, October 22, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/CIGIE_Letter_to_OLC_Whistleblower_Disclosure.pdf.
[32] Cohen, Zachary, and David Shortell. 2019. âCoalition of Inspectors General Slam DOJ Opinion on Whistleblower Complaint.â CNN Politics, October 25, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/25/politics/inspectors-general-olc-letter-whistleblower-opinion.
[33] Black, Charles L. Impeachment: A Handbook. 5â14. 1974.
[34] Montanaro, Domenico, and Susan Davis. 2019. âPelosi Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry into President Trump.â NPR. September 24, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/24/763700264/trumps-ukraine-call-may-be-game-changer-on-impeachment.
[35] Schiff, Adam, and Devin Nunes. âH. Rept. 116-335âReport of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry.â Congress.gov. US Government Publishing Office, December 11, 2019. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/116th-congress/house-report/335/1.
[36] Wolf, Zachary B. and Sean OâKey. âThe Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, Annotated.â CNN. December 3, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/trump-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry-report-annotated/.
[37] Ewing, Philip. âPresident Trump Impeached by the House in Historic Rebuke.â NPR, December 19, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/789020525/president-trump-impeached-by-the-house-in-historic-rebuke.
[38] Ewing, Philip. â âNot Guiltyâ: Trump Acquitted on 2 Articles of Impeachment as Historic Trial Closes.â NPR, February 5, 2020. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2020/02/05/801429948/not-guilty-trump-acquitted-on-2-articles-of-impeachment-as-historic-trial-closes.
[39] Collinson, Stephen. âTrump Weaponizes the Presidency after Impeachment Victory.â CNN, February 10, 2020. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/politics/donald-trump-presidency-joe-biden-impeachment/index.html.
[40] Swan, Betsy Woodruff, and Nicholas Wu. âCIA Feud Complicates Jan. 6 Probe.â Politico. August 2, 2021. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/02/cia-feud-jan-6-investigation-502017.
[41] Trump, Donald J. âLetter from President Donald J. Trump to Senators Richard Burr and and Mark Warner and Representatives Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes.â Politico. The White House, April 3, 2020. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-3f7b-d6b1-a3f1-fffb5e270000.
[42] Cleveland, Margot. âWhy Inspector General Michael Atkinson Roundly Deserved to Be Fired.â Federalist, April 9, 2020. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/06/why-inspector-general-michael-atkinson-roundly-deserved-to-be-fired/.
[43] Cohen, Zachary, and David Shortell. âCoalition of Inspectors General Slam DOJ Opinion on Whistleblower Complaint.â CNN Politics. Cable News Network, October 25, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/25/politics/inspectors-general-olc-letter-whistleblower-opinion.
[44] Horowitz, Michael. âStatement by the Honorable Michael Horowitz, Chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.â Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. CIGIE, April 4, 2020. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/invprg1211appi.pdf.
The breaking news just kept on coming. The recently concluded Mueller investigation had not resulted in an indictment or impeachment of President Donald Trump. However, rumblings of a new scandal were just beginning to be heard. In 2019, a complaint from a whistleblower led back to a phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and allegations that Trump held up military aid for political dirt against future presidential opponent Joe Biden. Pedro Israel Orta had worked in the CIA for more than a decade and was quite familiar with the whistleblower process and how the CIA dealt with them. Something about the current anonymous whistleblower and how their allegations were being treated felt inauthentic. Orta had attempted to call out problem areas while he worked for the agency but was met with inaction and stonewalling. His career would be stalled by the type of do-nothing officials who often managed to fail upward in government service. The lauding of the anonymous âwhistleblowerâ in late 2019 led Orta to speak out and explain the process of exposing government corruption through the channels of intelligence.
The Truth Must Be Told is equal parts memoir and government expose. Pedro Israel Orta hailed from a family that emigrated from Cuba. Ortaâs recall of his early years in Miami and his diligence in working and paying his way through school provides gravitas at the outset of the narrative. The Cold War made an impression on Orta and left him with a budding desire to serve his country. Orta would join the CIA as the agency was about to enter into a new type of war: The War on Terrorism. Ortaâs patriotism and work ethic are very apparent as he describes various highlights/lowlights with each posting. He would serve in Afghanistan and Iraq, where chaos was never far away. However, the perils of government bureaucracy represented a different sort of chaotic paradigm. The frustrations experienced by Pedro in calling out wrongdoing at the agency are appreciable, no matter the place of employment. This proves to be a valuable book in understanding how our intelligence agencies are run and often mismanaged.