quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

---

The "rule" is the law. The law is:

The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

---

The fiction is that the rule changed.

Looks like the last change to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act was December 2015.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

---

The "rule" is the law. The law is:

The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.

---

So the form that had "required" in big bold letters was, what, a typo to you?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

---

The "rule" is the law. The law is:

The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.

---

So the form that had "required" in big bold letters was, what, a typo to you?

---

Form.

Rule.

Two different things.

The rule clearly changed. Denying it is weak comedy.

And the timing is suspect at best.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The rule clearly changed. Denying it is weak comedy.

And the timing is suspect at best.

---

Show me where the rule changed. And use something other than the form as evidence.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

---

The "rule" is the law. The law is:

The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.

---

So the form that had "required" in big bold letters was, what, a typo to you?

---

Form.

Rule.

Two different things.

---

All I see is you cannot prove the rule did not change. I agree the statute was not specific on that point, but the clear rule in use was eminently clear.

No ambiguity.

Before August 2019, you had to have first-hand evidence, Now you do not.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The rule clearly changed. Denying it is weak comedy.

And the timing is suspect at best.

---

Show me where the rule changed. And use something other than the form as evidence.

---

The form shows the procedure changed

And you have as much as admitted you cannot show any procedure prior to August 2019 which allowed for second-hand evidence.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

---

The "rule" is the law. The law is:

The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.

---

So the form that had "required" in big bold letters was, what, a typo to you?

---

Form.

Rule.

Two different things.

---

All I see is you cannot prove the rule did not change. I agree the statute was not specific on that point, but the clear rule in use was eminently clear.

No ambiguity.

Before August 2019, you had to have first-hand evidence, Now you do not.

---

Actually that is exactly what I did prove. I linked to the Act, you can see the date of each change. No change since 2015.

Ergo, no change near the filing of the complaint.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

---

The "rule" is the law. The law is:

The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.

---

So the form that had "required" in big bold letters was, what, a typo to you?

---

No, it was a misapplication of the law. Do you think the intelligence community gets to ignore the language of the statute Congress passes?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

---

The "rule" is the law. The law is:

The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.

---

So the form that had "required" in big bold letters was, what, a typo to you?

---

Form.

Rule.

Two different things.

---

All I see is you cannot prove the rule did not change. I agree the statute was not specific on that point, but the clear rule in use was eminently clear.

No ambiguity.

Before August 2019, you had to have first-hand evidence, Now you do not.

---

Actually that is exactly what I did prove. I linked to the Act, you can see the date of each change. No change since 2015.

Ergo, no change near the filing of the complaint.

---

No, you proved nothing. The Act does not describe the procedures, which is where the rule part comes in.

The rule, the method by which evidence is gathered and reported, is vital to the discussion. And from what I see it is silent insofar as the public can see.

That makes the form the closest evidence we have. It would be one thing if earlier forms left off official positions on what was admissible, but the old form was extremely clear that only first-hand evidence was acceptable.

That's not a typo, it's a statement of policy, of rule. And that, undeniably, was changed after Trump's phone conversation with the Ukraine President.

Curious at the very least.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

---

The "rule" is the law. The law is:

The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.

---

So the form that had "required" in big bold letters was, what, a typo to you?

---

No, it was a misapplication of the law. Do you think the intelligence community gets to ignore the language of the statute Congress passes?

---

The law does not specify "second-hand" or hearsay information. The Act was silent on that distinction, and so policy was created by the IC to cover the question.

Looks like Obama's CIA spook (aka the whistleblowhard) is just trying to save his own ass.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

From the May 2018 form:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

"FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED
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 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, the IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information as an ICWPA."

So the rule itself very definitely was changed. The questions now are by whom, when, and for what reason?

---

I don't see a rule change. Are you saying the rule was not followed?

---

May 2018 the rules required first-hand knowledge. Late August 2019 they did not.

That's a big change.

---

No, the rules were the same, unless you can show me a document that is different in 2019. I have shown the form was changed. You have shown the 2018 rules required first hand info to reach "urgent concern".

---

The explanation is detailed and contradicts what Schiff has said.

That's a rule change, not a form change. "First hand information required", underlined, bold and all caps is not hard to understand.

---

Yes, I see the bolded part. In the form. Show me a rule change.

---

The part where "required" is no longer required.

---

Right, but the change is to the form, the rule has been the same.

---

Prove it. Show where the original rule allowed for second-hand information.

The form changed because the rule changed, anyone saying different is selling fiction.

---

The "rule" is the law. The law is:

The Intelligence Community Whistle blower statue directs the IG to:

receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

Nothing about the statue requires the complaint or information to be based on first-hand knowledge. There has been no amendment to the law.

---

So the form that had "required" in big bold letters was, what, a typo to you?

---

No, it was a misapplication of the law. Do you think the intelligence community gets to ignore the language of the statute Congress passes?

---

The law does not specify "second-hand" or hearsay information. The Act was silent on that distinction, and so policy was created by the IC to cover the question.

---

First, you don't know that. You are guessing.

Second, administrative agencies don't get to re-write the law in the name of policy. That is one of the priorities of the conservative legal agenda; it is a pre-requisite for Federalist Society seal of approval to be a federal judge and therefore it is a requirement that one believe in that principle to be a Donald Trump appointee.

But we are going to chuck that principal and had a requirement the law does not contain because protecting Donald Trump from his own bull in a china shop instincts is the most important thing in the world?

FWIW, adding an evidentiary requirement to who gets whistle blower protection under the statute seems to me to be beyond the purview of the agency. Congress works very closely with these agencies in drafting the laws. If the agency wanted it to be the law, they could have had it written that way.

A good example is the qui tam legislation Doc brought up earlier in the thread that does impose heightened knowledge standards on that type of whistle blower, albeit for a different purpose.

And also FWIW, it doesn't matter. Impeachment and trial should not be based on what the whistle blower says happened; it should be based on what actually happened. Regardless of how the whistle blower gaiend his or her knowledge.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "First, you don't know that. You are guessing."

I know the wording on the form was in place for years without complaint (the law dates back to 1998), and was only changed in the last month.

That's relevant and germane.

And anyone basing a complaint against the President on hearsay should be laughed out of the room, If you have credible first-hand evidence of wrongdoing let's see it.

Unless and until then, this is just the braying of a hysterical donkey.

---

You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?

More than that:You have no first hand knowledge of why the form was changed. Yet you are certain you are correct based on the circumstances surrounding the change. And you are complaining about someone who allegedly has no first hand knowledge of his assertion and believes it to be correct based on the circumstances surrounding the incident. Got it.

And do you not see a danger in limiting complaints to those who have first-hand knowledge? That makes cover-ups a lot easier doesn't it?

NEWS: Amb. Kurt Volker debunked whistleblower claim in testimony to Congress:

"At no time was I aware of or took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden."

WB claimed Volker advised Ukrainians on how to "navigate" Trump's demand to Zelensky.



Volker told Congress he didn't know Biden was mentioned on Trump-Zelensky call.

This debunks whistleblower claim that Volker advised Ukrainians on how to handle Trump's request to investigate Biden.



Testimony:
https://www.scribd.com/document/428770281/Volker-Testimony-Long-Form

Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"

In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.

You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.

HuMcK said:

---

---

Fake news.

HuMcK said:

---

---

It's amazing how corrupt the news is by trying to hide info. Unbelievably dirty the lib press is.
It's too bad there isn't accountability w/ the press. Any other profession if you were this corrupt or dirty or lied this much you would be fired instantly, but the problem is the management w/ these lib organizations is just as dirty so they encourage it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"

In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.

You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.

---

Let's hear from the first-hand knowledge folks and see. You may be right. But we don't know until we ask them. You know, investigate.

Lol really? People, like you, who's entire theory about Trump being framed is based on a string of out of context text messages between 2 FBI employees having an affair, should sit down and stfu.

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahaha

Investigation request:

Doc Holliday said:

---

Investigation request:

---

I hereby order US companies...

Somebody explain to this guy how the Constitution works.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Investigation request:

---

I hereby order US companies...

Somebody explain to this guy how the Constitution works.

---

As long as you understand how the executive branch works...

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Investigation request:

---

I hereby order US companies...

Somebody explain to this guy how the Constitution works.

---

As long as you understand how the executive branch works...

---

What am I getting wrong? A tweet is not an EO.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"

In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.

You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.

---

Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "You keep avoiding the main point here: we are going to the judge the President on what he actually did, not on what the whistle blower says he did, so why is this hearsay issue so important?"

In large part because no one with first-hand knowledge of the call's details had any problem with what was said.

You are depending on hearsay, and that is your problem.

---

Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichmann, Mitchell, etc, all had "no problem" with each other's conduct. I guess there never should have been an investigation? Lets find out what the facts are. I know that Trump supporters are terrified of that idea, but it actually works pretty well most of the time.

---

Man, you're really reaching now.

And the facts we know up to now, all support Trump so maybe you should consider Schiff's problems with honesty and transparency, or Biden's ethics blunder in this matter.