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.