Hang on Lyle. Your original claim was that the form whistleblowers fill out was changed a few days before the whistleblower made his complaint to allow second hand information. The intelligence community IG has come out publicly and said a. the form wasn't changed, secnd hand information has always been allowed and b. the whistleblower had first hand information. So your original claim is completely wrong. What part of this don't you understand?Quote:
Yeah, about that...Quote:
This isn't true. It's a bullshit claim that the GOP are repeating because they've got no actual facts on their side here. Not only is it bullshit that the form was changed but it turns out the whistleblower did indeed have first hand information. And we know this because the trump-appointed IG just came out and said so:
https://twitter.com/Anthony/status/1178797071517786112
https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1177734528833445888
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docum...Complaints.pdf
Shot
In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in
possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit
information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand
knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from
another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she
witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge
of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.)
Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide
sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you
think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the
complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
Chaser
The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is
the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before
Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the
Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether
the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging
the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant
– or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect
to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand
information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The
ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since
Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a
whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.
The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two
relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or
records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or
records involved.”
As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and
authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and
Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the
Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in
the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the
Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which
would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to
determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required
by statute. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was
not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President,
the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained
during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dOsbsuhYGQ
Thanks for playing :thumb: