Rand Paul Unleashes LIVE On Senate Floor – Names Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella 5 Times

[Coyote]

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

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.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here because that reads like you are backing up my/rays claim, if so please allow me time to re-evaluate my position.

What claim exactly do you think it backs up?

It outlines the process (the article at the link) - the whistle blower's role and the IG's role. The IG's responsibility is to confirm whether or not it's credible by verifying and, if needed getting first hand accounts if the whistle blower provided second hand accounts.

If the IG can not confirm credibility, the complaint is not sent up, that is all.

The whistle blower is NOT required to provide first hand info.

In this case it was deemed credible.

You do realize the rules were changed after the fact to allow only second hand knowledge, right?

No. They didn’t. The form changed.

show me the exact rule change.

 

[Dick Foster]

www.citizenfreepress.com ^ | February 4, 2020 12:36 pm | Kane

Fantastic Video — Rand Paul Takes Revenge On Democrat Coup Plot

This just unfolded on Senate floor in the past 30 minutes… Shitte has a heart attack!!! ROTFLMFAO

Paul should be locked up for what he did. The fucking yellow bastard did it when the Senate chambers were empty. He didn't have the balls to do it any other time. Another coward like his big mouth daddy Trump.

You truly are both stupid and ignorant and you make no secret of it.

 

[bodecea]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

The report was 90% lies. The idea that any Republican is going to assassinate this douchebag doesn't pass the laugh test. Democrats do that kind of thing, not Republicans.

When did Obama protect whistleblowers reporting on his administration?

Answer: never.

Ever hear of the MAGA bomber, fool? Or how about the right wing trash who shot up the pizza joint? Who do you think you're bullshitting, anyway? You know goddam well what some of these nutjobs are capable of. So shut the fuck up.

They just arrested a trumpanzee in Arizona for sending Rep. Schiff a death threat. So typical.

 

[Nostra]

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

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.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here because that reads like you are backing up my/rays claim, if so please allow me time to re-evaluate my position.

What claim exactly do you think it backs up?

It outlines the process (the article at the link) - the whistle blower's role and the IG's role. The IG's responsibility is to confirm whether or not it's credible by verifying and, if needed getting first hand accounts if the whistle blower provided second hand accounts.

If the IG can not confirm credibility, the complaint is not sent up, that is all.

The whistle blower is NOT required to provide first hand info.

In this case it was deemed credible.

You do realize the rules were changed after the fact to allow only second hand knowledge, right?

No. They didn’t. The form changed.

show me the exact rule change.

The form changed?

All by itself, no doubt.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What claim exactly do you think it backs up?

geez, here!
the poster said:

COLFAX_M SAID: ↑
There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.

I replied with:

lol...from your link:

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]

You posted a quote that backed me up:

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.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

and now the obligatory non-sequitur portion of your response:

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

who cares?

 

[Jitss617]

A very wrong thing to do.

Why?

Because it was unnecessary, potentially illegal, put's his life and his family in jeopardy. Everything in the report was independently verified. The only reason to do this is to ruin a man's life for doing the right thing and reporting on something even his superiors agreed was credible.

You guys are just nuts.

Think of precedents - if we can't protect whistle blowers reporting on unethical conduct from our government - who will take the risk of reporting?

What is so weird is it's typically the RIGHT that takes the position of checks and balance on the government. Things have certainly changed.

The report was 90% lies. The idea that any Republican is going to assassinate this douchebag doesn't pass the laugh test. Democrats do that kind of thing, not Republicans.

When did Obama protect whistleblowers reporting on his administration?

Answer: never.

Ever hear of the MAGA bomber, fool? Or how about the right wing trash who shot up the pizza joint? Who do you think you're bullshitting, anyway? You know goddam well what some of these nutjobs are capable of. So shut the fuck up.

They just arrested a trumpanzee in Arizona for sending Rep. Schiff a death threat. So typical.

We don’t have enough jail to arrest all the Trump haters that threaten him

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

lol...from your link:
The good news is that ray owes you a great big thank you

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

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.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

Yes it does. Again, page two, first paragraph:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think 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.

So what this says is that yes, he could file a complaint, but just not as an actual whistleblower.

Breaking! Bolton spills the beans in new book! Can't blame the whistleblower, can ya Trumptard?

You don't know what's even in the book retard! All you have is what publishers throw out as leaks to try and hype the sales for when it's released.

I can predict what is in Bolton's book by the way Mitch & the mob refused to call him to defend Trump, retard.

They didn't want him to defend Trump. They wanted additional testimony to drag this out and keep Sanders and Warren benched while Biden gets in extra campaign time. What they wanted were other witnesses hoping and praying they had something that the commies didn't have in their phony impeachment inquiry. In other words, a continued fishing expedition.

It's not that Trump is hiding anything, it's just he isn't going to play their game. If you're so concerned about hiding stuff, why not ask about the 18th witness that Schiff Face is keeping under cover???

 

[Coyote]

There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.

lol...from your link:

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]

The good news is that ray owes you a great big thank you

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

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.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

Yes it does. Again, page two, first paragraph:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think 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.

So what this says is that yes, he could file a complaint, but just not as an actual whistleblower.

But according to the IG, the whistleblower had clear, first hand knowledge. Both were checked off in the report. So he did file the complaint as a whistleblower.

 

[Coyote]

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

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.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

Yes it does. Again, page two, first paragraph:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think 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.

So what this says is that yes, he could file a complaint, but just not as an actual whistleblower.

Breaking! Bolton spills the beans in new book! Can't blame the whistleblower, can ya Trumptard?

You don't know what's even in the book retard! All you have is what publishers throw out as leaks to try and hype the sales for when it's released.

I can predict what is in Bolton's book by the way Mitch & the mob refused to call him to defend Trump, retard.

They didn't want him to defend Trump. They wanted additional testimony to drag this out and keep Sanders and Warren benched while Biden gets in extra campaign time. What they wanted were other witnesses hoping and praying they had something that the commies didn't have in their phony impeachment inquiry. In other words, a continued fishing expedition.

It's not that Trump is hiding anything, it's just he isn't going to play their game. If you're so concerned about hiding stuff, why not ask about the 18th witness that Schiff Face is keeping under cover???

If he isn't hiding anything, Bolton would have testified.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

But according to the IG, the whistleblower had clear, first hand knowledge. Both were checked off in the report. So he did file the complaint as a whistleblower.

And this proves "there is nothing in the law requiring firsthand knowledge" how? or are you backing me up again?

 

[Coyote]

But according to the IG, the whistleblower had clear, first hand knowledge. Both were checked off in the report. So he did file the complaint as a whistleblower.

And this proves "there is nothing in the law requiring firsthand knowledge" how? or are you backing me up again?

Nope. I acknowledge your point.

 

[Nostra]

There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.

lol...from your link:

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]

The good news is that ray owes you a great big thank you

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

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.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

Yes it does. Again, page two, first paragraph:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think 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.

So what this says is that yes, he could file a complaint, but just not as an actual whistleblower.

But according to the IG, the whistleblower had clear, first hand knowledge. Both were checked off in the report. So he did file the complaint as a whistleblower.

What was the first hand knowledge? Be specific.

 

[Nostra]

Yes it does. Again, page two, first paragraph:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think 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.

So what this says is that yes, he could file a complaint, but just not as an actual whistleblower.

Breaking! Bolton spills the beans in new book! Can't blame the whistleblower, can ya Trumptard?

You don't know what's even in the book retard! All you have is what publishers throw out as leaks to try and hype the sales for when it's released.

I can predict what is in Bolton's book by the way Mitch & the mob refused to call him to defend Trump, retard.

They didn't want him to defend Trump. They wanted additional testimony to drag this out and keep Sanders and Warren benched while Biden gets in extra campaign time. What they wanted were other witnesses hoping and praying they had something that the commies didn't have in their phony impeachment inquiry. In other words, a continued fishing expedition.

It's not that Trump is hiding anything, it's just he isn't going to play their game. If you're so concerned about hiding stuff, why not ask about the 18th witness that Schiff Face is keeping under cover???

If he isn't hiding anything, Bolton would have testified.

He wasn't called to testify.

oops!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What was the first hand knowledge? Be specific.

That's going to be a herculean task for anyone who goes there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes it does. Again, page two, first paragraph:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think 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.

So what this says is that yes, he could file a complaint, but just not as an actual whistleblower.

Breaking! Bolton spills the beans in new book! Can't blame the whistleblower, can ya Trumptard?

You don't know what's even in the book retard! All you have is what publishers throw out as leaks to try and hype the sales for when it's released.

I can predict what is in Bolton's book by the way Mitch & the mob refused to call him to defend Trump, retard.

They didn't want him to defend Trump. They wanted additional testimony to drag this out and keep Sanders and Warren benched while Biden gets in extra campaign time. What they wanted were other witnesses hoping and praying they had something that the commies didn't have in their phony impeachment inquiry. In other words, a continued fishing expedition.

It's not that Trump is hiding anything, it's just he isn't going to play their game. If you're so concerned about hiding stuff, why not ask about the 18th witness that Schiff Face is keeping under cover???

If he isn't hiding anything, Bolton would have testified.

That doesn't mean he's hiding anything. Again, if Schiff Face thinks he's got something (which he never stated what he's after) then he could have sent a subpoena to Bolton, had him refuse it, and then proceed to court to see what their opinion was.

Now let's discuss what Schiff is hiding. All witnesses from the secret basement inquiry were called to testify in public, except the 18th witness. Why? Because according to people at the secret inquiry, the witness has evidence that Schiff and the WB did indeed know each other, and had contact prior to the inquiry. Schiff all along claimed he didn't know who the WB was.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.

lol...from your link:

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]

The good news is that ray owes you a great big thank you

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

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.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

Yes it does. Again, page two, first paragraph:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think 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.

So what this says is that yes, he could file a complaint, but just not as an actual whistleblower.

But according to the IG, the whistleblower had clear, first hand knowledge. Both were checked off in the report. So he did file the complaint as a whistleblower.

The source provided by Playtime didn't say that. What it described are the two boxes, but didn't elaborate to say both were checked off. After all, you can only check one or the other. It stated the informant had direct knowledge, but didn't use the words first hand information.

According to all reports, the rat got his information from somebody else; second hand information. Therefore one of two things took place here. Either all reporting on the rat are incorrect, and he did have first hand information, or he didn't have first hand information, and lied on the application.

 

[colfax_m]

There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.

lol...from your link:

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]

The good news is that ray owes you a great big thank you

Interesting. See this part below:

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. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations. The Complainant followed the law in filing the urgent concern complaint, and the ICIG followed the law in transmitting the information to the Acting Director of National Intelligence on August 26, 2019.

It's a double negative but apparently the ICIG determined that the allegations were more than second hand information.

 

[Nostra]

There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.

lol...from your link:

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]

The good news is that ray owes you a great big thank you

Interesting. See this part below:

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. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations. The Complainant followed the law in filing the urgent concern complaint, and the ICIG followed the law in transmitting the information to the Acting Director of National Intelligence on August 26, 2019.

It's a double negative but apparently the ICIG determined that the allegations were more than second hand information.

Yeah, hang your hat on that, idiot.

 

[Coyote]

There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.

lol...from your link:

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]

The good news is that ray owes you a great big thank you

Dejas Vous and here we go again.

Let's simplify it down. What does it say?

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.

It's incumbent on the IG to verify or find reliable first hand information before the report can be transmitted. Checks and balances.

What it does NOT say is that a whistle blower can only be a whistle blower with first hand information. In fact the form used REQUIRES the whistle blower to identify whether or not the info is first hand or not.

Yes it does. Again, page two, first paragraph:

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think 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.

So what this says is that yes, he could file a complaint, but just not as an actual whistleblower.

But according to the IG, the whistleblower had clear, first hand knowledge. Both were checked off in the report. So he did file the complaint as a whistleblower.

The source provided by Playtime didn't say that. What it described are the two boxes, but didn't elaborate to say both were checked off. After all, you can only check one or the other. It stated the informant had direct knowledge, but didn't use the words first hand information.

According to all reports, the rat got his information from somebody else; second hand information. Therefore one of two things took place here. Either all reporting on the rat are incorrect, and he did have first hand information, or he didn't have first hand information, and lied on the application.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.

lol...from your link:

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]

The good news is that ray owes you a great big thank you

Interesting. See this part below:

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. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations. The Complainant followed the law in filing the urgent concern complaint, and the ICIG followed the law in transmitting the information to the Acting Director of National Intelligence on August 26, 2019.

It's a double negative but apparently the ICIG determined that the allegations were more than second hand information.

Something is wrong here somewhere. Pay close attention to the first few sentences where it said:

determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix,

So it says he had access, not first hand information. And going back to the first paragraph on page 2, it says a complaint can be filed without it being under the whistleblower category. In fact second hand knowledge cannot be filed that way.