Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement 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.
lol...from your link:There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
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.
His report is out there..........what was first hand? Be specific.lol...from your link:There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
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.
Saying he had direct access would seem to indicate it was first hand information, at least for part of the complaint.
lol...from your link:There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
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.
Wow! He checked a box....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.
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/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement 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.
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
What was the first hand knowledge Coyote?lol...from your link:There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
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.
Not sure there is a difference. It satisfied the criteria for first hand information and it's been substantiated. It's splitting hairs.
lol...from your link:There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
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.
Saying he had direct access would seem to indicate it was first hand information, at least for part of the complaint.
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/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement 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.
Now it makes even less sense. How can you have first hand and second hand information? You either have one or the other. If you have first hand information, then second hand information is something you already had.
I think the Republicans should go after this whistleblower after this is all over to find out WTF is going on. Because it's making less and less sense as we go through this.
lol...from your link:There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
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.
Not sure there is a difference. It satisfied the criteria for first hand information and it's been substantiated. It's splitting hairs.
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/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement 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.
Now it makes even less sense. How can you have first hand and second hand information? You either have one or the other. If you have first hand information, then second hand information is something you already had.
I think the Republicans should go after this whistleblower after this is all over to find out WTF is going on. Because it's making less and less sense as we go through this.
You can easily have both if it's a complex report.
Why should they go after him? Political vendetta for exposing this?
Cool.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/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement 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.
Now it makes even less sense. How can you have first hand and second hand information? You either have one or the other. If you have first hand information, then second hand information is something you already had.
I think the Republicans should go after this whistleblower after this is all over to find out WTF is going on. Because it's making less and less sense as we go through this.
You can easily have both if it's a complex report.
Why should they go after him? Political vendetta for exposing this?
lol...from your link:There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
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.
Saying he had direct access would seem to indicate it was first hand information, at least for part of the complaint.
Then why did he not use the term first hand information? Why would he use the term direct information? Second hand information can still be direct. He got it directly from the person that listened in on the call.
The only other possibility here is the IG is a coconspirator in this mess. Not that it wouldn't surprise me if he was.
lol...from your link:There is nothing in the law that requires it to be first hand information.
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.
Saying he had direct access would seem to indicate it was first hand information, at least for part of the complaint.
Then why did he not use the term first hand information? Why would he use the term direct information? Second hand information can still be direct. He got it directly from the person that listened in on the call.
The only other possibility here is the IG is a coconspirator in this mess. Not that it wouldn't surprise me if he was.
Cool. What was the "whistleblowers" "direct and first hand" knowledge?lol...from your link:
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.
Saying he had direct access would seem to indicate it was first hand information, at least for part of the complaint.
Then why did he not use the term first hand information? Why would he use the term direct information? Second hand information can still be direct. He got it directly from the person that listened in on the call.
The only other possibility here is the IG is a coconspirator in this mess. Not that it wouldn't surprise me if he was.
Because direct and first hand are synonymous. Second hand information is not direct.
Please list his "direct and first hand knowledge" Coyotelol...from your link:
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.
Saying he had direct access would seem to indicate it was first hand information, at least for part of the complaint.
Then why did he not use the term first hand information? Why would he use the term direct information? Second hand information can still be direct. He got it directly from the person that listened in on the call.
The only other possibility here is the IG is a coconspirator in this mess. Not that it wouldn't surprise me if he was.
Maybe because for the purposes of a whistle blower complaint direct and first hand is essentially the same, both are different than second-hand.
Either way it seems to be splitting hairs and so now you dump the IG into the "bad guy", without a shred of evidence, because it's so important to discredit the whistleblower despite the fact his report has been independently verified.
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/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement 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.
Now it makes even less sense. How can you have first hand and second hand information? You either have one or the other. If you have first hand information, then second hand information is something you already had.
I think the Republicans should go after this whistleblower after this is all over to find out WTF is going on. Because it's making less and less sense as we go through this.
You can easily have both if it's a complex report.
Why should they go after him? Political vendetta for exposing this?
This is about the phone call only. You either heard the phone call yourself of you didn't. I'm sure he didn't listen to part of the call and walk out of the room.
Please list his "direct and first hand knowledge" CoyoteInteresting. See this part below:
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.
Saying he had direct access would seem to indicate it was first hand information, at least for part of the complaint.
Then why did he not use the term first hand information? Why would he use the term direct information? Second hand information can still be direct. He got it directly from the person that listened in on the call.
The only other possibility here is the IG is a coconspirator in this mess. Not that it wouldn't surprise me if he was.
Maybe because for the purposes of a whistle blower complaint direct and first hand is essentially the same, both are different than second-hand.
Either way it seems to be splitting hairs and so now you dump the IG into the "bad guy", without a shred of evidence, because it's so important to discredit the whistleblower despite the fact his report has been independently verified.
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/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement 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.
Now it makes even less sense. How can you have first hand and second hand information? You either have one or the other. If you have first hand information, then second hand information is something you already had.
I think the Republicans should go after this whistleblower after this is all over to find out WTF is going on. Because it's making less and less sense as we go through this.
You can easily have both if it's a complex report.
Why should they go after him? Political vendetta for exposing this?
This is about the phone call only. You either heard the phone call yourself of you didn't. I'm sure he didn't listen to part of the call and walk out of the room.
If he had legal access to a transcript of the phone call that is direct evidence sufficient to warrant looking into.
Seriously - this is ridiculous. You are essentially saying if you came across an official recording or memo that detailed something that seemed wrong, you couldn't report it because you weren't there when the memo was created? I've never heard such parsing before when it comes to whistle blowers. We have a system in place to check and verify - it met each of the requirements. You keep ignoring that.
