According to a report out tonight by Catherine Herridge, the Office of the inspector General of the Intelligence Community states:
“the whistle-blower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018.”
“The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information.”
Seriously, who was this traitor working for??
^*
Why can’t you guys and the POTUS use the word Traitor in the proper context?
Did the traitor have “first”, “second” or “third” hand knowledge??
Even they don’t seem to know.
^*
The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community who Trump appointed found them and the information to be credible and so did Trump’s acting DNI.
“To me it is clear on the basis of even what was unclassified that this is an individual with an extraordinary amount of credible information," he said. “I felt it was very credible.”
That’s great.
Now answer the question.
^*
Oh…know.
The acting DNI already did that for you
To me it is clear on the basis of even what was unclassified that this is an individual with an extraordinary amount of credible information," he said. “I felt it was very credible.”
What was represented to the IGIC??
First, second or third hand knowledge??
Why the two different stories??
^*
The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, 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 or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.
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. 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
As I read it. The whistle blower did have first hand knowledge of certain portions of his complaint. So it was appropriate for him to select both boxes.
Are you under the impression the ICIG didn’t check up on the whistle blower’s sources?
NARRATOR: He did and he found them to be credible
Who said anything about “checking both boxes”??
Link??
^*
And??
^*
Your complaint with this thread is that the whistleblower presented they had first hand knowledge. That’s what I explained. The whistleblower had both first hand and second hand knowledge to various parts of their complaint.
It makes your question irrelevant. It doesn’t matter since both the ICIG and DNI found them to be credible
Traitor?
Seriously?
Are you that seriously unaware of what Constitutional treason is?
I guess so.
There is no mention of anyone checking off “both boxes”.
Not that I’ve seen anyway.
You’re just making that up.
^*
They are in on the conspiracy the “traitor” is working.
Why don’t you post it here, just so everyone knows.
Thanks in advance.
^*
There you go, that little bit of nuance is way over some folks heads.
It’s literally quoted in the OP you posted. That was the boxes checked, that they had first hand and other information.
