Oldbear83 said:
cinque said:
Oldbear83 said:
cinque said:
Oldbear83 said:
cinque said:
Oldbear83 said:
Just how did the whistleblower use a form which was not in existence at the time he filed his complaint?
Yes, the form change was back-dated to August, but did not exist at the time the complaint was submitted.
I guess the whistle-blower could time travel too?
There is just no way of getting around this:
...the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018," the inspector general wrote.
We know that statement is incorrect, from screen shots in that same Federalist report you ignored.
But ignoring facts is a Democrat thing, all about "getting" Trump you know.
Those screen shots don't prove anything new about the form. The whistleblower filed on the old one. Government agencies, like most other businesses don't back date forms. They revise and update them.
That's the point, though. The old one prohibited second-hand information, required a statement saying the information was first-hand.
So what did the guy put on that form?
Can you cite the prohibitive language?
It's written in the top portion of the instructions, page 2
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 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, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA"
https://www.scribd.com/document/427767481/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18
Yeah, well...do you have anything else?
The Federalist story included purported screenshots of
previous and current versions of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form. The current form allows the whistleblower to check a box indicating that the person either learned of the information firsthand or from others, whereas the previous form contained the following language:[url=
]
[/url]But as Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, pointed out, even the previous version shown above doesn't say there was a "requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings." The law has never required them to do so.
Sanchez pointed out that the form pictured above contains a "description of the Inspector General's (IG) standard for making a credibility determination, as required by statute, within 14 days of the submission of a complaint. According to that guidance, the IG would not make a finding of credibility, and thus transmit the complaint to the [Director of National Intelligence], unless the DNI was in possession of direct evidence supporting the claim."
It does not say, Sanchez continued, "that whistleblowers may not submit reports based on secondhand knowledge, but rather that such reports will not be escalated to the DNI unless the IG can obtain more...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whistleblowers-firsthand-knowledge/
