So why was the whistle blower law changed in August?
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?
Comments
-
Stick to the first two questions. They are important.
Who else would gave wrote it? Leave it to Hondo? I think not. -
Hey what happened to that "promise" you told us was in the Whistle blower complaint Scotty?GDS said: -
They bring you in to do Hondo's heavy lifting eh?insinceredawg said: -
Now this is funny.insinceredawg said: -
Oh there's somebody that fell for fake news dumb fuck, but it wasn't me.insinceredawg said:
Anyone who claims the IC IG never required first-hand evidence is being deliberately dishonest. -
Nope just here to watch Gay Bob rage post and have a meltdown every single fucking day.pawz said:
They bring you in to do Hondo's heavy lifting eh?insinceredawg said: -
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...SFGbob said:
Hey what happened to that "promise" you told us was in the Whistle blower complaint Scotty?GDS said:
Glad I was able to correct your mistake about the whistleblower law changing though. -
Read it, there was no promise. You lied.GDS said:
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...SFGbob said:
Hey what happened to that "promise" you told us was in the Whistle blower complaint Scotty?GDS said:
Glad I was able to correct your mistake about the whistleblower law changing though. -
The law did change
HTH -
-
It wasn’t changed. Glad I could help.SFGbob said:And who changed it?
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? -
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.SFGbob said:
Read it, there was no promise. You lied.GDS said:
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...SFGbob said:
Hey what happened to that "promise" you told us was in the Whistle blower complaint Scotty?GDS said:
Glad I was able to correct your mistake about the whistleblower law changing though. -
Hey Blob - in case you aren't aware of what a lie is this is a lie. Your welcome.RaceBannon said:The law did change
HTH -
My link versus the word of two pathological liars like scoot and H
Tuff call
The law changed -
But, in a detail first reported by The Federalist, a key form was recently revised to drop a requirement that such complaints include first-hand information in order to be sent to Congress.
In a letter obtained by Fox News, top House Republicans urged Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson to preserve all records related to that revision, allegedly made sometime in August.
Specifically, they questioned whether the timing was related to the Ukraine complaint.
“When this revised form was published, and whether the whistleblower received a copy of this form when making the disclosure on August 12, 2019, are both unknown to the House Intelligence Committee. However, the timing of the removal of the first-hand information requirement raises questions about potential connections to this whistleblower’s complaint,” said the letter signed by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. “This timing, along with numerous apparent leaks of classified information about the contents of this complaint, also raise questions about potential criminality in the handling of these matters.”
They lie. Its what they do. Its who they are -
For a “small government conservative” you sure are in favor of bureaucrats requiring things the statute does not. Your intake form isn’t the law.RaceBannon said:My link versus the word of two pathological liars like scoot and H
Tuff call
The law changed -
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.HHusky said:
It wasn’t changed. Glad I could help.SFGbob said:And who changed it?
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? -
Congress writes the laws. Again, happy to help.SFGbob said:
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.HHusky said:
It wasn’t changed. Glad I could help.SFGbob said:And who changed it?
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? -
Great, quote that promise Scotty.GDS said:
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.SFGbob said:
Read it, there was no promise. You lied.GDS said:
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...SFGbob said:
Hey what happened to that "promise" you told us was in the Whistle blower complaint Scotty?GDS said:
Glad I was able to correct your mistake about the whistleblower law changing though. -
You lied. Schiff lied. Everybody liedHHusky said:
For a “small government conservative” you sure are in favor of bureaucrats requiring things the statute does not. Your intake form isn’t the law.RaceBannon said:My link versus the word of two pathological liars like scoot and H
Tuff call
The law changed
The law changed. You got caught again. Another fraud another lie another false charge.
Lather rinse repeat -
Got civics?RaceBannon said:
You lied. Schiff lied. Everybody liedHHusky said:
For a “small government conservative” you sure are in favor of bureaucrats requiring things the statute does not. Your intake form isn’t the law.RaceBannon said:My link versus the word of two pathological liars like scoot and H
Tuff call
The law changed
The law changed. You got caught again. Another fraud another lie another false charge.
Lather rinse repeat
Black eye for OHS. -
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
-
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.RaceBannon said: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.”
-
So the IG's desecration under the law was changed.HHusky said:
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.RaceBannon said: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.”
-
ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.”HHusky said:
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.RaceBannon said: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.”
