Sunday, October 6, 2019

ODNI Logo Oddities

1) @ODNIgov Where did this logo come from?
mentions 2) Today I accessed your "Urgent Concern Disclosure Form." Again the document was posted in an odd way, with spaces in the name, on 9/24/2019 at 4:25:00 p.m. and then modified at 9/25/2019 at 2:39:15 p.m., using Acrobat PDFMaker for Word.
dni.gov/files/ICIG/Doc…
mentions 3) When I analyzed the document i clicked on the top of the page to see the properties, and saw that I was clicking on a graphic. I downloaded the graphic and searched Google Images.

Whose logo is this?
mentions 4) It looks to me like someone handmade a banner for the page using a simple font (Times New Roman) and a made-up logo. Or maybe I'm not looking in the right place.
mentions 4) This is where the form is parked.
dni.gov/index.php/who-…
mentions 5) The logo is not the same as the DNI logo.
odni.gov/index.php/news…
mentions 6) The "Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form" failed a basic Section 508 (accessibility) test. Federal agency websites must comply with "508" and any website manager would insist that a document be compliant first before posting. See screenshot #1
mentions 7) The document is very sloppily constructed and fails the 508 test miserably actually. See screenshot #2.
mentions 8) It looks to me like someone outside the ODNI threw this together. See screenshot #3 showing Section 508 fail.
mentions 9) Okay, hold on. Here is the "Semiannual Report October 2018 - March 2019" and it does have this different logo, and the name of the document also contains spaces.

The font is not Times New Roman, though.

Let's check this.

dni.gov/files/ICIG/Doc…
mentions 10) This document was made with Adobe InDesign CC 13.1 (Windows) and Adobe PDF Library 15.0. The PDF version is 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x).
mentions 11) Urgent Concern Disclosure Form - Acrobat PDFMaker 18 for Word [different software], Adobe PDF Library 15.0 [same as the report], PDF version 1.6 [Acrobat 7.x] different, slightly higher version (may be meaningless)
mentions 11) Both documents have no security.
mentions 12) Font comparison, just because agency documents tend to be consistent at least within an office.

Urgent concern disclosure form - Arial-BoldMT, ArialMT, Calibri (Embedded Subset), MS-Gothic, SymbolMT, TimesNewRoman - all Embedded, TrueType, Ansi encoding.
mentions 13) Semiannual report font is different for the header. Bookman Old Style. That's unusual.
mentions 14) Look at the two documents side by side to see the variation in header font.
mentions 15) The header of the Urgent Disclosure Form is not centered, indicating that it is homemade and not done by a graphic designer.
mentions 16) The header of the Semiannual Report is centered.
mentions 17) The letters are fuzzy on the Urgent Concern form. Homemade.
mentions 18) Letters are crisp on the Semiannual Report.
We should keep in mind that these are two different kinds of documents, but still, why is the form so obviously rushed and sloppy?
mentions 19) Viewed at 100%, the logos are two different sizes.
mentions 20) 400% zoom. The Semiannual Report logo is crisp. The Urgent Concern form logo is pixelated.

Why the rush to upload a crappy looking form?
mentions 21) The issue of the form is important, because one has to establish who cooperated in this hoax.
mentions 22) Let's explore some of the scenarios.
mentions 23) In all scenarios there is a July 25, 2019 phone call.
mentions 24) In all scenarios, as of July 2, 2019, less than a month before this phone call, the @ODNIgov hotline page does NOT link to the "Urgent Concern" form but rather only to a hotline form.
mentions 25) David John Weaver did this research. @DavidJohnWeave

archive.is/32Ly1

archive.is/o/32Ly1/web.ar…
mentions 26) This is a screen capture of the online form that was posted as of April 16, 2019, which is still downloadable.

You can see that (consistent with the Semiannual Report) the logo is centered.

web.archive.org/web/2019041614…
mentions 27) Let's look at the properties of the form. I just downloaded it.
mentions 27) The "alert" language is in red. This is different than the "Urgent Concern" form.
mentions 28) Zoomed to 400%, the logo is pixelated, just like the "Urgent Concern" form. However the actual color of the letters is DIFFERENT. In the authentic form, they are blue. In the "homemade" form, they are BLACK.
mentions 29) This next part seems important.
mentions 30) The properties of the old form (remember there was only one form available) differ significantly.

First --

1. The filename has NO spaces.
2. There IS an author ("Mitchell A. Ly-DNI-Y-")
mentions 31) Second, in the old form, as one would expect, there were measures taken to prevent tampering. It was locked with a password. See screenshot.
mentions 32) Third, in the old form, again as one would expect, the "Company" is "U.S. Government."
mentions 33) Look at the upper left hand side of the document. It says "ICIGHotlineForm.pdf (SECURED)".
mentions 34) Now let's go back to the "Urgent Concern" form.
Look at the upper left hand side of the form. No indication that it is secured.
mentions 35) "Urgent Concern" form - NO SECURITY.
On a Federal government form?
On an Intelligence Community Inspector General form?
Someone was in a gigantic rush.
mentions 36) "Urgent Concern" form - NO AUTHOR.
mentions 37) "Urgent Concern" form - NO COMPANY - no indication that it's U.S. government software.
mentions 38) Looking at the properties of the Semiannual Report:
Filename has spaces; no security; no author; no company - contractor work.

Who changed out the "Urgent Disclosure" form, how, when, why, and by what process?
mentions 40) Here from @PedroIsraelOrta is the version from May 24, 2018. Note the font is completely different (I think this is Calibri).

mentions 41) Let's go back to the calendar.

July 2, 2019 - the website had only the hotline form, a secure form with an author from DNI and software listed as U.S. government.

Three weeks later, July 25, 2019 - the phone call that supposedly started all this.

What happened after that?
mentions 42) From the @nytimes we learn that "days before" the whistleblower complaint was filed, the complainant approached a House Intelligence Committee staffer.

The date on the complaint is August 12, 2019.

"Days before" would be less than a week.

mentions 44) See calendar:

~August 6, 7, 8, or 9 - Complainant approaches Schiff/staff.

August 12: "Urgent concern" complaint, addressed to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff, submitted to ODNI.

August 15: Updated "urgent concern" form appears online, "Rev. August 2019." No day.
mentions 45) "As Of" - August 2019. Just August.
Source: @ClimateAudit citing @LT51552424

mentions 46) But we know from the document properties of the "Urgent Concern" form that appears online that it was created/modified September 24/25, fully a month later.
mentions 47) In a statement dated September 30 (contains spaces - hasty), @ODNIgov said:

"the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018."

dni.gov/files/ICIG/Doc…
mentions 48) So the whistleblower consulted Hill staff, was told to get a lawyer and go to the IG (VERY SERIOUS ACCUSATION!) (Btw, the IG had new director & program manager), but somehow used a dated form then filled it out wrong? New form 3 days later?
mentions 49) Perhaps the form that was uploaded on August 15 was the OLD form, and then they updated the form and website to reflect the NEW form...for a month? (New info dated September 24/25)

Someone needs to explain the timing.
dni.gov/files/ICIG/Doc…
mentions 50) Just one other thing. Look at the @ODNIgov ICIG news release itself.
mentions 51) Compare it with the header on the new "Urgent Concern" form.

Do you see how the graphic design is different?
mentions 52) Just going to take a quick look at the properties.
mentions 53) Interestingly the font is completely different in the header, the logo is differently situated, it's another "removable" graphic, etc.
54) Unusual news release header text color. This is the color we used to use in DHS if I recall. Nobody else uses blue instead of black.
55) Spaces in the name.
No author.
Acrobat PDFMaker18 for Word.
Adobe PDF Library 15.0. PDF Version 1.5 (Acrobat 6.x).
No security.
No company.
56) Created 9/30/2019 and then modified right away.
57) I think the same person who created/modified the "Urgent Concern" form on September 25 also created/modified the News Release on September 30.
(End.)
mentions
mentions compile
mentions It is hard to believe that #Ukraine #Whistleblower checked off both boxes (“personal” and “other employees have told me”) yet failed to disclose meeting with Congress before reporting?

odni.gov/files/ICIG/Doc…
My spidey sense is on fire. In my opinion, this is NOT coming from inside the @ODNIgov. Someone is tampering with the process for destructive, partisan aims.

How do we know the whistleblower isn’t Kurt Volker?

washingtonpost.com/world/national…
Volker used his testimony for partisan aims, specifically to defend a political candidate under a corruption cloud.

Volker uses the spelling “Zelenskyy” - just as the whistleblower did.

This is a spelling you’d use if you had close cultural knowledge.

d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/10…
The whistleblower complained in the form of writing a letter to Congress. That is unusual.
Volker has intimate knowledge of the matter, both personal and secondhand, so the form would be accurately filled out.

He may have referred to himself in the third person to divert suspicion.
The whistleblower cites George Soros’ news agency:”US Special Rep 4 Ukraine Kurt Volker is drawing a salary from John McCain's think tank, which is funded by George Soros and a DC lobbying firm working 4 Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko,among others.”

Volker was an ambassador. State Department is a member of the US Intelligence Community.

dni.gov/index.php/what…
Volker started his career at the CIA. This matches media reports that the whistleblower is CIA.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Volk…
Now works for McCain Institute.
If Volker is the complainant, and is not legally a whistleblower, because HE IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, he isn’t entitled to confidentiality, is he?
If Volker is the complainant, and is savvy enough to know he can’t be a whistleblower because he isn’t a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE OR APPLICANT for federal employment, perhaps that is what he asked the Intelligence Committee about: How do I go about whistleblowing????
Recall that the Committee staffer told the complainant to get a lawyer and contact the IG — perhaps because the status of a volunteer who is an ex-employee needed to be figured out.

I am not a lawyer.
This is only a theory.
Recall that McCain hated @POTUS bitterly.
For what it’s worth, I thought I would throw the possibility out there.
Actually, here’s a showstopper: If Volker is the complainant and can’t legally be a whistleblower, then logically, @POTUS cannot be impeached based on his complaint. #Ukraine #Ukrainegate #UkraineHoax
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.
___________
By Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. All opinions are the author's own. Public domain.