Intel Community Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions

Here's racist Moscow Mystic's disparaging 'Ebonics'.

How racist of you, Moscow Mystic.

Stalin and Putin would be proud of you, Moscow Mystic. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't be disparaging Ebonics, I know yo daddy be one of the best in da country. He be teaching at San Quentin prison, IB proud of Rufus Hankering, IBs daddy. IB Im glad you finally identified as a multi cultured and multigendered boy

Liberal re-tards progressive keep changing the rules soooooooooo they get what they want and America is overall to stupid to see " Doctor my eyes"

I don't be disparaging Ebonics, I know yo daddy be one of the best in da country. He be teaching at San Quentin prison, IB proud of Rufus Hankering, IBs daddy. IB Im glad you finally identified as a multi cultured and multigendered boy Originally Posted by themystic

You're an ignorant, racist, delusional soul, Moscow Mystic. Keep sucking, it's what gets you through a day in the real world, Moscow Mystic.

TM has ^^^ Alternitwit, distorted reality ,, maybe its the Russians again

Wrong again, bud.
Per the link you supplied.

"Whistleblowers were required to provide direct, first-hand knowledge of allegations," McCarthy wrote. "But just days before the Ukraine whistleblower came forward, the IC (Inspector General of the Intelligence Community) secretly removed that requirement from the complaint form." Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani echoed the same point Sept. 29.

All three tweets lead back to the same article on the conservative website Federalist.

All three are wrong.

First-hand knowledge by a whistleblower has never been required since the law protecting intelligence community whistleblowers was enacted.

Inspector General staff, who investigate a charge, need first-hand information to move a complaint forward — as they did in this case.

The current complaint was based on both first and second-hand information.

Based on these facts, Trump and other Republicans asserted that the rules for whistleblowers were changed "just before" the current complaint was filed. Actually, only the forms were changed. The rules stayed the same.

The actual sequence
The whistleblower who triggered the impeachment inquiry filled out the earlier version of the form, and no rules were changed.

The Office of Inspector General issued a statement Sept. 30 saying that "the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019, is the same form the IC IG has had in place since May 24, 2018."

The inspector general’s office underscored that the whistleblower received the section about the need for first-hand evidence before a claim would go on to the next step.

So changes to the form took place after the whistleblower filed.

As for the rules on what is required, those have been the same since 2014 under an order issued by the Director of National Intelligence. Intelligence Community Directive 120 defines a protected disclosure as one that the employee "reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule or regulation."

The statement from the Inspector General’s office emphasized the reasonable belief standard.

"By law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint," the statement said. "The IC IG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law."

The section about the need for first-hand information has to do with the investigation that follows a whistleblower’s report, not a requirement for the report itself.

The latest IG statement says it changed its forms after the current affair unfurled, because it understood some parts "could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint."

The statement noted that the whistleblower checked both boxes to indicate he/she had both first and second-hand information.

It also notes that its investigation found the report credible and urgent."

+1

Per Politifact, masterdickmuncher's favorite source, firsthand knowledge was REQUIRED: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You must have missed the part that said the whistleblower filled out the earlier form and checked BOTH boxes. That he had both first and second hand info.

The law stayed the same. The policy stayed the same.
The whistleblower used the old form (the one you're complaining was changed) to file his complaint.

You know what quotation marks mean, right? I didn't go against my link.

And because you're too lazy to look, it was changed to clarify the meaning of part of the form. The policy and the law weren't altered

"The latest IG statement says it changed its forms after the current affair unfurled, because it understood some parts "could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint."

Virtually unchanged ... it was changed .. and the liberal mess .. er press claim May 2018. ara .. ya gonna go against your own link? unwise that ..


so why was it changed at all? why allow non-first hand complaints? that means anyone could file a report with ZERO first hand knowledge which is exactly what this crap is.
Right and wrong.
Anyone can file the complaint with ZERO first-hand knowledge.
You're wrong that this complaint lacks first-hand knowledge.

Just because you just don't seem to get what the situation is doesn't mean swing voters don't.

and let's see how many swing voters this bitch alienates ...


Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The sources y'all use either never seem to update or you don't go back to check if there is updated info.

My post smells like vodka to you because of your breath.

I did read your link. I also read other sources that debunked your link.

Which you, of course, didn't read.


The rest of your comments in this post show the ever-increasing bullshit you have to spew to cover trump's actions.

You know how I can tell you didn't read my link? Other than your post smells like vodka?

Yeah, lets put together a form giving people the opportunity to send upper managers on wild goose chases. /sarc.


The IG in this case was part of the conspiracy to overthrow the President. He was part of the "Russian Collusion" conspiracy too. There's an article on it in theconservativetreehouse. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You are correct. The dummies in here don't know the law. And they don't care how stupid it makes them look to deny the facts released so far.

The thing is, no one is talking about the actual testimony yet.

To FILE a complaint,

"First-hand knowledge by a whistleblower has never been required since the law protecting intelligence community whistleblowers was enacted."

The complaint FILED contains both first and second-hand knowledge.

"The current complaint was based on both first and second-hand information."

Both quotes come from the Politifact link provided by hebe.

That's right IB a bonafide "Whistle Blower" must have first hand direct knowledge of a crime or conspiracy to commit a crime for his or her testimony to be admissible in a court of law. These dummies in here don't know the law nor do they care about it as long as something is derogatory against Trump or his supporters they'll go with it regardless how stupid it makes them look. Originally Posted by Levianon17

My post smells like vodka to you because of your breath.

I did read your link. I also read other sources that debunked your link.

Which you, of course, didn't read.


The rest of your comments in this post show the ever-increasing bullshit you have to spew to cover trump's actions. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Nope. Nothing debunked but the Dim scam. That's why Schitt is on the run. Keep drinking. You're running out of blue.

Nope. Nothing debunked but the Dim scam. That's why Schitt is on the run. Keep drinking. You're running out of blue. Originally Posted by gnadfly

On the run....They are going to impeach Trump over this.

I wouldn't call that 'on the run'.

Wrong again, bud.
Per the link you supplied.

"Whistleblowers were required to provide direct, first-hand knowledge of allegations," McCarthy wrote. "But just days before the Ukraine whistleblower came forward, the IC (Inspector General of the Intelligence Community) secretly removed that requirement from the complaint form." Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani echoed the same point Sept. 29.

All three tweets lead back to the same article on the conservative website Federalist.

All three are wrong.

First-hand knowledge by a whistleblower has never been required since the law protecting intelligence community whistleblowers was enacted.

Inspector General staff, who investigate a charge, need first-hand information to move a complaint forward — as they did in this case.

The current complaint was based on both first and second-hand information.

Based on these facts, Trump and other Republicans asserted that the rules for whistleblowers were changed "just before" the current complaint was filed. Actually, only the forms were changed. The rules stayed the same.

The actual sequence
The whistleblower who triggered the impeachment inquiry filled out the earlier version of the form, and no rules were changed.

The Office of Inspector General issued a statement Sept. 30 saying that "the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019, is the same form the IC IG has had in place since May 24, 2018."

The inspector general’s office underscored that the whistleblower received the section about the need for first-hand evidence before a claim would go on to the next step.

So changes to the form took place after the whistleblower filed.

As for the rules on what is required, those have been the same since 2014 under an order issued by the Director of National Intelligence. Intelligence Community Directive 120 defines a protected disclosure as one that the employee "reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule or regulation."

The statement from the Inspector General’s office emphasized the reasonable belief standard.

"By law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint," the statement said. "The IC IG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law."

The section about the need for first-hand information has to do with the investigation that follows a whistleblower’s report, not a requirement for the report itself.

The latest IG statement says it changed its forms after the current affair unfurled, because it understood some parts "could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint."

The statement noted that the whistleblower checked both boxes to indicate he/she had both first and second-hand information.

It also notes that its investigation found the report credible and urgent."




You must have missed the part that said the whistleblower filled out the earlier form and checked BOTH boxes. That he had both first and second hand info. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You must have missed the part where Politico admitted that the IC ADMITTED IT CHANGED THE FORM AND IGNORED ITS OWN STANDING POLICY before Politico began its political spin.

Oh, but the IC rule stipulated that first-hand knowledge was absolutely required before a complaint could be forwarded to Congress, and that shit never happened! Hear-say is inadmissible in an American court room. You can stop your mendacious equivocation. This is a dim-retard setup, and there's nothing honest about it.

You must have missed the part where Politico admitted that the IC ADMITTED IT CHANGED THE FORM AND IGNORED ITS OWN STANDING POLICY before Politico began its political spin.

Oh, but the IC rule stipulated that first-hand knowledge was absolutely required before a complaint could be forwarded to Congress, and that shit never happened! Hear-say is inadmissible in an American court room. You can stop your mendacious equivocation. This is a dim-retard setup, and there's nothing honest about it.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Originally Posted by WTF

You've just conceded that it was orchestrated.

You've just conceded that it was orchestrated. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You just lied about wtf I conceded.

I conceded it does not make two fucks how Jeffery Epstein was outted.

Did someone break their confidentially agreement?

Who gives a fuck!

Well you do because you want to protect him.

But he is going to get impeached no matter how loud you Trumpers cry.

You just lied about wtf I conceded.

I conceded it does not make two fucks how Jeffery Epstein was outted.

Did someone break their confidentially agreement?

Who gives a fuck!

Well you do because you want to protect him.

But he is going to get impeached no matter how loud you Trumpers cry. Originally Posted by WTF

No, by your previous remark -- intentionally or in another moment of Freudian stupidity -- you admitted people conspired to "let the cows out".

Trump ain't going anywhere. Buy some more Kleenex for your tears and some Vaseline for your butt hurt.