A summary of the call was released by the Justice Department Thursday. This is what the whistleblower wrote about the call:. Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests.
Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenski to The complaint raised concerns about White House efforts to restrict access to the records of the July 25 call.
According to the complaint, "senior White House officials had intervened to 'lock down' all records of the phone call," and White House officials were "directed" to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system. Here's the whistleblower's description:. In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U. This set of actions underscored to me that the White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.
The complainant said that around May 14, according to U. Trump directed Vice President Mike Pence to cancel his trip to Ukraine for Zelensky's inauguration, and these officials said the president "made clear" that he did not want to meet with Zelesnky until he saw how Zelensky "chose to act" in office:. I do not know whether this action was connected with the broader understanding, described in the unclassified letter, that a meeting or a phone call between the president and President Zelensky would depend on whether Zelensky showed willingness to "play ball" on issues that had been publicly aired by Mr.
Lutsenko and Mr. The complaint notes that Mr. Lutsenko made a series of allegations in March about the election, including allegations that two of his political rivals interfered in the election on behalf of the Democratic National Committee, and that U. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch had "blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their 'evidence' about the U.
Yovanovitch was recalled from her post at the end of April. Giuliani said in an interview in May that she was removed "because she was part of the efforts against the president. Good money, world travel, and the chance to help rebuild a war-torn country sounded like the perfect job. Bolkovac was shipped out to Bosnia, where DynCorp had been contracted to support the UN peacekeeping mission.
She was assigned as a human rights investigator, heading the gender affairs unit. The lack of proper training provided sounded the first alarm bell, but once she arrived in Sarajevo, she found out that things were a lot worse. At great risk to her personal safety, she began to unravel the ugly truth about officers involved in human trafficking and forced prostitution and their connections to private mercenary contractors, the UN, and the U.
State Department. After bringing this evidence to light, Bolkovac was demoted, felt threatened with bodily harm, was fired, and ultimately forced to flee the country under cover of darkness—bringing the incriminating documents with her.
Thanks to the evidence she collected, she won a lawsuit against DynCorp, finally exposing them for what they had done. This is her story and the story of the women she helped achieve justice for.
DHS employees, contractors, subcontractors, and grantees perform an important service by reporting what they reasonably believe to be evidence of wrongdoing, and the law protects them from threatened or actual reprisal for doing so. Ensuring that the OIG is promptly and thoroughly reviewing complaints of whistleblower retaliation that it receives, and that it is responding to whistleblowers in a timely fashion; and.
Coordinating with the U. Office of Special Counsel , other agencies, and non-governmental organizations on relevant matters. The information and linked materials accessible from this page are intended to serve as educational tools for DHS employees and supervisors about whistleblower protections. A disclosure of waste, fraud, or abuse that includes classified information is not a protected disclosure under the whistleblower laws unless the disclosure is made in accordance with the law and rules that govern the proper handling and transmission of classified information.
For example, you are not protected when disclosing classified information to an unauthorized recipient, even if you reasonably believe the information is evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse. You may submit complaints involving classified information using the following Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System JWICS E-mail: [email protected] This email address is not live and will not work from unclassified systems.
Additionally, section 8H of the Inspector General Act sets forth a detailed process for employees in the Intelligence Community who intend to provide classified information to Congress.
If an adverse personnel action has been taken, or threatened against you, in reprisal for making a disclosure of wrongdoing within your DHS agency, to the OIG, or elsewhere, you may submit a complaint to the OIG Hotline or the U.
Office of Special Counsel. If you submit a complaint to the OIG, we will review the allegation to make a determination about whether DHS OIG will investigate the matter or refer the complaint to the suitable agency.
In certain instances, an employee who has experienced retaliation because of a protected communication may file an appeal directly with the Merit Systems Protection Board MSPB. Personnel actions that are directly appealable to the MSPB include adverse actions, retirement appeals, performance-based removals or reductions in grade, denials of within-grade salary increases, reduction-in-force actions, and denials of restoration of employment rights.
As part of the process, the employee may request the OIG to review the alleged reprisal. Section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year extended whistleblower protections to employees of government contractors, subcontractors, and grant recipients as part of a 4 year pilot program.
Information about the program can be found at 41 U. C Section Under the pilot program, these employees were protected from reprisal for coming forward with information that they reasonably believe is evidence of gross mismanagement of a Federal contract or grant; a gross waste of Federal funds; an abuse of authority relating to a Federal contract or grant; a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a Federal contract.
On December 14, Congress passed Public Law , which permanently extends whistleblower protections to these employees. The new law also extends the protections to subgrantees and personal services contractors working on Federal defense and civilian contracts.
0コメント