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.
Please list his "direct and first hand knowledge" CoyoteSomething 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.
Has the report been released?
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.
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.
If he had legal access to a transcript of the phone call that is direct evidence sufficient to warrant looking into.
I have legal access to that, as well as over 6 billion other people on Earth.
Does that make us all "whistleblowers"?
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.
And I'm willing to believe Contards like you can't prove he lacked direct knowledge so all you can do is dance around the facts.
The IG found it credible and within the definitions of a legitimate whistleblower complaint.
The items in it have been independently verified as credible.
So this is really all you have, parsing and splitting hairs on whether or not he is a whistleblower.
Please list his "direct and first hand knowledge" CoyoteSaying 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.
Has the report been released?
The report is out there but not the actual application that the WB filled out. I can't find that anywhere, and that's what we would need to see to figure out WTF is going on with this complaint.
And I'm willing to believe Contards like you can't prove he lacked direct knowledge so all you can do is dance around the facts.
The IG found it credible and within the definitions of a legitimate whistleblower complaint.
The items in it have been independently verified as credible.
So this is really all you have, parsing and splitting hairs on whether or not he is a whistleblower.
YOU made the claim he had direct and first hand knowledge AND that it has been confirmed.
What is that first hand knowledge, and what confirmed it?
Face facts, you lied and have been busted in that lie. Stop digging your grave, liar.
(this is where you usually lock a thread for review)
Calling out your ridiculous backtack to "if" is retarded?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.
If he had legal access to a transcript of the phone call that is direct evidence sufficient to warrant looking into.
I have legal access to that, as well as over 6 billion other people on Earth.
Does that make us all "whistleblowers"?
Can you get any more retarded? (rhetorical question).
Kind of looks like you can't add anything to your argument so you resort to the ridiculous.
Please list his "direct and first hand knowledge" CoyoteThen 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.
Has the report been released?
The report is out there but not the actual application that the WB filled out. I can't find that anywhere, and that's what we would need to see to figure out WTF is going on with this complaint.
I can't imagine the complaint would be available unredacted because of confidentiality and classified concerns, but maybe.
You provided nothing showing what specific first hand knowledge he had.
And I'm willing to believe Contards like you can't prove he lacked direct knowledge so all you can do is dance around the facts.
The IG found it credible and within the definitions of a legitimate whistleblower complaint.
The items in it have been independently verified as credible.
So this is really all you have, parsing and splitting hairs on whether or not he is a whistleblower.
YOU made the claim he had direct and first hand knowledge AND that it has been confirmed.
What is that first hand knowledge, and what confirmed it?
Face facts, you lied and have been busted in that lie. Stop digging your grave, liar.
(this is where you usually lock a thread for review)
I provided my sources, if you choose not to believe the IG's statement - that's not MY claim, that is the IG.
Now keep flailing.
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.
You and Playtime keep telling me that, and I keep responding this has nothing to do whether he could file it or not, it's what it was filed under. In other words, an intelligence agency agent can file a complaint and not be the person with first hand information. Therefore that person is not actually a whistleblower, they are an informant, and therefore, not covered under any specific protections or regulations.
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.
You and Playtime keep telling me that, and I keep responding this has nothing to do whether he could file it or not, it's what it was filed under. In other words, an intelligence agency agent can file a complaint and not be the person with first hand information. Therefore that person is not actually a whistleblower, they are an informant, and therefore, not covered under any specific protections or regulations.
Well the IG specified he met the requirements. I see no reason for him to say otherwise when it could be easily disproved.
The IG is the one who changed the requirements.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.
You and Playtime keep telling me that, and I keep responding this has nothing to do whether he could file it or not, it's what it was filed under. In other words, an intelligence agency agent can file a complaint and not be the person with first hand information. Therefore that person is not actually a whistleblower, they are an informant, and therefore, not covered under any specific protections or regulations.
Well the IG specified he met the requirements. I see no reason for him to say otherwise when it could be easily disproved.
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.
You and Playtime keep telling me that, and I keep responding this has nothing to do whether he could file it or not, it's what it was filed under. In other words, an intelligence agency agent can file a complaint and not be the person with first hand information. Therefore that person is not actually a whistleblower, they are an informant, and therefore, not covered under any specific protections or regulations.
Well the IG specified he met the requirements. I see no reason for him to say otherwise when it could be easily disproved.
I must have missed that part. What you showed me is he met the requirements to submit a complaint, nothing about if he was a defined whistleblower.
And I'm willing to believe Contards like you can't prove he lacked direct knowledge so all you can do is dance around the facts.
The IG found it credible and within the definitions of a legitimate whistleblower complaint.
The items in it have been independently verified as credible.
So this is really all you have, parsing and splitting hairs on whether or not he is a whistleblower.
Still no first hand evidence.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.
You and Playtime keep telling me that, and I keep responding this has nothing to do whether he could file it or not, it's what it was filed under. In other words, an intelligence agency agent can file a complaint and not be the person with first hand information. Therefore that person is not actually a whistleblower, they are an informant, and therefore, not covered under any specific protections or regulations.
Well the IG specified he met the requirements. I see no reason for him to say otherwise when it could be easily disproved.
I must have missed that part. What you showed me is he met the requirements to submit a complaint, nothing about if he was a defined whistleblower.
Further on in the report, here is what he says:
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.
In addition - he is referred to, specifically, as a whistle blower, in the report.
Please list his "direct and first hand knowledge" CoyoteMaybe 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.
Has the report been released?
The report is out there but not the actual application that the WB filled out. I can't find that anywhere, and that's what we would need to see to figure out WTF is going on with this complaint.
I can't imagine the complaint would be available unredacted because of confidentiality and classified concerns, but maybe.
I think you can if the names are redacted. I would just like to see both boxes checked off and what his own words are.
