Is there a single liberal here who doesn't think something stinks about this? And why does the whistle blower complaint read like it was written by a team of lawyers?
It wasn’t changed. Glad I could help.
Gosh whom to believe? O'Keefed who claimed Hillary never lied to the public about her emails and that Schiff never lied when he claimed Trump asked them to "manufacture" dirt on Biden? Or the plan language of the IG that says First hand information is required.
Hey what happened to that "promise" you told us was in the Whistle blower complaint Scotty?
You didn't read the complaint? I admit I didn't get a chance to read it until yesterday as we were on yacht du scott for some salmon and crab killing since Thursday but seeing how you were on here endlessly since Thursday I figured you would have read it at least. Then again you never read the Mueller Report either so I guess I shouldn't be surprised...
Glad I was able to correct your mistake about the whistleblower law changing though.
Read it, there was no promise. You lied.
Do you not know the definition of a lie? How could I lie when I hadn't seen the complaint. I claimed reports said the complaint contained a promise and it did.
Do you think Race doesn't know the difference between a form and a law? Maybe...
“It seems like they are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, the regulatory framework, and the language on one form,” said Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.
The kernel of fact near the center of the conspiracy theory is that there is, indeed, a new version of Form 401 dated August 2019.
A question on the form explicitly anticipates tips based on secondhand information, and asks the whistleblower to check a box: “I have direct and personal knowledge,” or, “I heard about it from others.” The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story.
What the article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018, making it impossible that it was added as an easement for Trump’s whistleblower. The major difference in the fields is that the old form includes three options instead of two, subdividing secondhand sources into outside source and “other employees.”
There’s a reason the form has allowed secondhand reports all along. The requirement for firsthand whistleblowing only is completely made up.
“There’s never been a requirement that a whistleblower have firsthand knowledge of what they’re reporting,” said Irvin McCullough, an investigator at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (and the son of a former IC IG). “They need to have a reasonable belief. The firsthand information is usually gathered by the inspector general, as I believe did occur here.”
When the IC IG receives an urgent report, it has 14 days to conduct a preliminary review under the law. If that investigation produces enough direct evidence, the IC IG can rule it “credible,” which triggers the legal requirement to forward the report to the director of central intelligence (DCI), and from there to Congress.
The Federalist and supporters of the Atkinson smear also point to a two-page information sheet distributed as part of the May 2018 version of the form but not the August 2019 version. It’s unclear when it was dropped, but a paragraph in that now-excised preamble was headed, “First-Hand Information Required,” seemingly contradicting the form itself. “In order to find an ‘urgent’ concern credible, the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information,” the text read in part. “The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.”
Though the text is confusingly drafted—which may be why the entire preamble was canned—a careful reading shows it’s not erecting a new hurdle for filing a whistleblower complaint, but rather describing the type of evidence the IC IG has to gather to judge the complaint “credible” at the end of its 14-day investigation.
According to the letter, it stated: “In order to find an urgent concern ‘credible,’ the ICIG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The ICIG cannot transmit information via the [Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act] 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 ICIG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.”
Caught in another lie as another fake scandal crumbles team hondo resorts to opinion pieces by lackeys rather than the IG
If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA
but I'm stupid OHS education Trumptard etc etc etc
According to the letter, it stated: “In order to find an urgent concern ‘credible,’ the ICIG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The ICIG cannot transmit information via the [Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act] 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 ICIG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.”
The law hasn’t changed. First hand information has never been required under the statute. Such a requirement would be stupid. Investigations are frequently launched on second hand information.
According to the letter, it stated: “In order to find an urgent concern ‘credible,’ the ICIG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The ICIG cannot transmit information via the [Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act] 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 ICIG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.”
The law hasn’t changed. First hand information has never been required under the statute. Such a requirement would be stupid. Investigations are frequently launched on second hand information.
So the IG's desecration under the law was changed.
According to the letter, it stated: “In order to find an urgent concern ‘credible,’ the ICIG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The ICIG cannot transmit information via the [Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act] 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 ICIG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.”
The law hasn’t changed. First hand information has never been required under the statute. Such a requirement would be stupid. Investigations are frequently launched on second hand information.
ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.”
Meanwhile the whistleblower is still not a whistle blower, did not have first hand info and John Brennen is still trying to unseat a duly elected president using our 17 intelligence agencies and team hondo is all in
You want to talk about shitty fucking Americans, look in the mirror
Meanwhile the whistleblower is still not a whistle blower, did not have first hand info and John Brennen is still trying to unseat a duly elected president using our 17 intelligence agencies and team hondo is all in
You want to talk about shitty fucking Americans, look in the mirror
The whistleblower isn’t a witness to Daddy’s crimes. He didn’t claim to be. But he knows who the witnesses are. And his information has merely proven to be accurate in all respects, meaning his sources were correct.
Daddy wants to shoot the sources and arrest Schiff. Nothing to see here, obviously.
Are you guys going to admit your news source lied to you yet?
Keep lying
I'm talking about how your news source said the law changed. And it went on to say it changed for the purpose of allowing the form to be filled out based on second hand information. Both of which are lies.
Meanwhile the whistleblower is still not a whistle blower, did not have first hand info and John Brennen is still trying to unseat a duly elected president using our 17 intelligence agencies and team hondo is all in
You want to talk about shitty fucking Americans, look in the mirror
The whistleblower isn’t a witness to Daddy’s crimes. He didn’t claim to be. But he knows who the witnesses are. And his information has merely proven to be accurate in all respects, meaning his sources were correct.
Daddy wants to shoot the sources and arrest Schiff. Nothing to see here, obviously.
And by “correct” O’Keefed means full of shit. Still looking for that quid pro quo.
Are you guys going to admit your news source lied to you yet?
Keep lying
I'm talking about how your news source said the law changed. And it went on to say it changed for the purpose of allowing the form to be filled out based on second hand information. Both of which are lies.
Law involves Congress. This was a policy/form change that happened right as the complaint was being made. And they will not comment on who/when the change was made (the "new" file was uploaded to the system in Sept 2019 but I know the HondoFS of the world think that is just a coincidence).
The IG only accepted complaints based on 1st hand knowledge of events (until changing the form/rules to allow this). By definition the IG would not have even accepted the paper complaint. Furthermore by definition it was not an Urgent Matter. The snitches' lawyers knew that so they kept saying Urgent even though it didn't meet the definition. For both reasons it should not have been forwarded to Congress.
But Shitt and Botox had already seen it and likely helped draft it. Because they are crooked like that.
The records are in plain site which is why you ignore them. And the transcript shows its a lie as well.
Are you guys going to admit your news source lied to you yet?
Keep lying
I'm talking about how your news source said the law changed. And it went on to say it changed for the purpose of allowing the form to be filled out based on second hand information. Both of which are lies.
Law involves Congress. This was a policy/form change that happened right as the complaint was being made. And they will not comment on who/when the change was made (the "new" file was uploaded to the system in Sept 2019 but I know the HondoFS of the world think that is just a coincidence).
The IG only accepted complaints based on 1st hand knowledge of events (until changing the form/rules to allow this). By definition the IG would not have even accepted the paper complaint. Furthermore by definition it was not an Urgent Matter. The snitches' lawyers knew that so they kept saying Urgent even though it didn't meet the definition. For both reasons it should not have been forwarded to Congress.
But Shitt and Botox had already seen it and likely helped draft it. Because they are crooked like that.
The records are in plain site which is why you ignore them. And the transcript shows its a lie as well.
Keep lying HondoFS.
Having the intake form made consistent with the statute sounds pretty sinister.
Comments
The law changed. You got caught again. Another fraud another lie another false charge.
Lather rinse repeat
Black eye for OHS.
“It seems like they are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, the regulatory framework, and the language on one form,” said Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.
The kernel of fact near the center of the conspiracy theory is that there is, indeed, a new version of Form 401 dated August 2019.
A question on the form explicitly anticipates tips based on secondhand information, and asks the whistleblower to check a box: “I have direct and personal knowledge,” or, “I heard about it from others.” The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story.
What the article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018, making it impossible that it was added as an easement for Trump’s whistleblower. The major difference in the fields is that the old form includes three options instead of two, subdividing secondhand sources into outside source and “other employees.”
There’s a reason the form has allowed secondhand reports all along. The requirement for firsthand whistleblowing only is completely made up.
“There’s never been a requirement that a whistleblower have firsthand knowledge of what they’re reporting,” said Irvin McCullough, an investigator at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (and the son of a former IC IG). “They need to have a reasonable belief. The firsthand information is usually gathered by the inspector general, as I believe did occur here.”
When the IC IG receives an urgent report, it has 14 days to conduct a preliminary review under the law. If that investigation produces enough direct evidence, the IC IG can rule it “credible,” which triggers the legal requirement to forward the report to the director of central intelligence (DCI), and from there to Congress.
The Federalist and supporters of the Atkinson smear also point to a two-page information sheet distributed as part of the May 2018 version of the form but not the August 2019 version. It’s unclear when it was dropped, but a paragraph in that now-excised preamble was headed, “First-Hand Information Required,” seemingly contradicting the form itself. “In order to find an ‘urgent’ concern credible, the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information,” the text read in part. “The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.”
Though the text is confusingly drafted—which may be why the entire preamble was canned—a careful reading shows it’s not erecting a new hurdle for filing a whistleblower complaint, but rather describing the type of evidence the IC IG has to gather to judge the complaint “credible” at the end of its 14-day investigation.
If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA
but I'm stupid OHS education Trumptard etc etc etc
You want to talk about shitty fucking Americans, look in the mirror
Daddy wants to shoot the sources and arrest Schiff. Nothing to see here, obviously.
You fucktards got played.
The IG only accepted complaints based on 1st hand knowledge of events (until changing the form/rules to allow this). By definition the IG would not have even accepted the paper complaint. Furthermore by definition it was not an Urgent Matter. The snitches' lawyers knew that so they kept saying Urgent even though it didn't meet the definition. For both reasons it should not have been forwarded to Congress.
But Shitt and Botox had already seen it and likely helped draft it. Because they are crooked like that.
The records are in plain site which is why you ignore them. And the transcript shows its a lie as well.
Keep lying HondoFS.
Oh and you’re wrong.
SAD.