It's confusing, but the CIA whistleblower first went to the CIA counsel, who went to the White House, and a sort of investigation got started. THEN the CIA WB decided to file a formal complaint with the intel community inspector general (getting it out of the CIA).

So there were two actual investigations, one coming from the CIA to the WH, and the other from the WB to the intel IG.
The one that went to the White House, well, you won't be surprised to hear that it didn't get very far.

Also, this means the White house knew BEFORE the DNI chief came to them with the complaint.
I know, hard to keep track of. I found that this podcast really helped = it's with one of the reporters who talked to some of the principles.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/podcasts/the-daily/whistleblower-complaint-cia.html

I think it was the IG or the whistleblower, when they realized the complaint was going to be buried. Then one of them went to the committee.
Do you know?

And it really explains a lot. I linked to it upthread.

But I kinda like the convergence of Catbyte and Dawgday.

canetoad.

The chronology seems like:
Right after the Ukraine phone call, some people (not sure how many) who knew about (might have been on) the call came to a CIA agent who had worked in the White House and talk about their concerns. He (it definitely seems like a HE-- the reporter keeps saying he) asks a colleague to talk to the CIA counsel about it, so that he can stay anonymous to protect his own sources.

The CIA counsel thinks it sounds serious, and asks for some more information from someone at the White House (probably in the WH counsel office)-- seeking to figure out if it's credible. This goes on for another couple weeks (Before and during the complaint). The counsel (a woman) decides that it's serious and credible, and follows the rules for her (this is not a whistleblower complaint, but just an alert), and takes it (under policy) to the Dept of Justice. (This is all according to the rules.) The DoJ lawyer goes to the White House and reads the transcript and tells the boss... AG Barr. "It enters a legal purgatory." It is deep-sixed, to use a Watergate term!

Around this time (August 12 or so), the original CIA officer learns that his original source people are getting interrogated... by White House counsel. That is, very intimidating. He's apparently worried that this was the wrong move, to go to the CIA counsel, even if it was what was in the rules.

CIA officer thinks that it's going to be covered up. He's learned more from his WH sources, and decides to file an official whistleblower complaint-- with the Intelligence Community Inspector General-- that is, getting it out of the CIA and away from the White House. This way it's confidential, and will go to Congress (he thinks).

The inspector general (Michael Atkinson) does exactly what he's supposed to -- investigate and evaluate. He determines that the complaint is credible and urgent (notice, same as the CIA counsel), and as required, takes it to the DNI chief, the new acting guy who had literally just moved into the head office.

The DNI chief should send it right to Congress. But he decides it's about the president, so he better cover his ass, I mean, ask for legal guidance.... from the DoJ.

Imagine the DoJ at this point. "We thought we buried this!!!!"

They pretend to do a review and tell the DNI that this doesn't have to go to Congress. "Nothing to see here."

The Inspector General (probably figuring out it's getting buried) notifies the Intel Committee (Schiff) that there is a complaint (apparently saying only that).

The Intel Committee expects to get the complaint then, and when it doesn't appear, starts asking questions, and Schiff goes public.

IF the CIA agent had waited for the first investigation, or the IG hadn't sent his hint to the committee, it might never have come to light.

This is a little bit the revenge of the bureaucrats. They knew this was important, and they used the bureaucratic process and a bit of finagling to make sure it got known.

Here's the link to that podcast. It's much more revealing than the accompanying article.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/podcasts/the-daily/whistleblower-complaint-cia.html

Glad someone here posted about it.

My question is where is Dan Coates in this chronology?

I think he and Sue Gordon (the deputy) were the source for the WaPo story which referred to "former DNI officials". Their last days were AFTER the complaint was filed.

But they're not the whistleblower because he's supposed to be in the CIA. But I think they know about it.

I would love to hear what Coats and Gordon have to say... I think if they are subpoenaed, they'll talk.

control things and, he hoped, prevent Schiff's committee from getting the complaint.

Same IG who wrote lengthy article yesterday about how whistleblower knowledge was not just hearsay rebutting Repub talking points that tried to discredit whistleblower.

Not sure what podcast everyone else is talking about, but this is the correct answer. The ICIG sent two letters to the Congressional Intelligence Committees about the existence of what he deemed was a credible and urgent whistleblower claim that needed to be forwarded to Congress as required by law, but he was getting push back against the Acting DNI. Here is a link to the two letters: https://www.lawfareblog.com/inspector-general-intelligence-community-letters-congressional-intelligence-committees

Called "How the Whistle-Blower Complaint Almost Didn’t Happen" and discusses what happened *before* the WB filed the formal WB complaint.

Very interesting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/podcasts/the-daily/whistleblower-complaint-cia.html

… my current environment.)

tia
las

As I recall, it was when Schiff told us that the ICIG had told him about the WB report. It was mid- Sept I believe .