Quote (CarsV @ Oct 6 2019 07:54pm)
Since when did hearsay constitute as whistleblowing? If that was the case, EVERY-FUCKING-BODY would be doing it. That's what's so criminal about what the Democrats are doing. There is no "old form". This just shows how ignorant you are. God I fucking love it.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdfYou said you have a security clearance, but let me explain anyway. That's the Director of National Intelligence website. The report was released by the intelligence community Inspector General.
Page 2:
Quote
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.
Oh, and:
Quote
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.
Page 3 talks about the newer forms. The whistle blower used the one which has been in place since Mid 2018.
Quote
Again, GOD I FUCKING LOVE IT. It's so obvious when people THINK they know shit when they really don't know SHIT. You don't just spill information to the whole wide world.
And what quid pro? Asking an official to investigate illegal wrongdoing?
You seem really emotional. No actual arguments.
This post was edited by IceMage on Oct 6 2019 06:10pm