Deep State at work in Intel Community

[bueno_Tuco]

funny how up until recently the Intel Whistleblower documentation specifically call out a requirement for “Direct first hand knowledge of the event in question” for the report to be deemed credible

Days before the Trump Whistleblower fiasco came to light the forms were changed removing the requirement

Kind of makes you go hummmmm??

 

[3Rfan]

funny how up until recently the Intel Whistleblower documentation specifically call out a requirement for “Direct first hand knowledge of the event in question” for the report to be deemed credible

Days before the Trump Whistleblower fiasco came to light the forms were changed removing the requirement

Kind of makes you go hummmmm??

You saw this information where? I've seen or heard NO ONE say such a thing.

 

[Neutron Monster]

You saw this information where? I've seen or heard NO ONE say such a thing.

It's totally wrong to the point that the ICIG specifically rebutted the point yesterday. There has never been a requirement for first hand information to exist.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/inspect...ty-releases-statement-whistleblower-complaint

The whole idea of this complaint is dumb. The point of a whistleblower complaint is that you're asking for investigation of something you believe to be wrong. The statute recognizes that a random employee is not likely able to gather all of the first hand evidence they would need to determine the full scope of whether or not something is wrong. The law is meant to empower employees to make good faith complaints to an authority who has investigative powers to gather all of the first hand information to check if the complaint is accurate. It recognizes that there is an imbalance of power between someone filing the complaint and the political figures who would otherwise be empowered to carryout such investigations.

This is what happened - the complaint was investigated and the inspector general deemed it credible based upon the first hand information they were able to gather. This information is not yet public, so we get inane drivel like this. They are attacking the messenger, not the evidence.

And, beyond this, the whistleblower's complaint states that he or she had first hand information when they filled out this particular complaint.

 

[Neutron Monster]

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/new...ement-regarding-intel-community-whistleblower

This sort of thing.