- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: It’s becoming clear there is no whistleblower
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:18 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:18 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The ICIG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. Whistleblower speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA for transmission.
"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."
It does not say that the first hand information must come from the whistleblower. That's part of the vetting process.
I use the analogy (to clarify the first hand info bit) of hearing a supervisor brag about extravagent spending on the taxpayer dime. The whistleblower didn't see it, he has no proof.. but he could still blow the whistle. The IG can then look at receipts or financial records and use that 'first hand' information the whistleblower was not in possession of to meet the statutory requirements of ICWPA.
1
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:18 am to cahoots
quote:The fact that those "supporting findings" are (A) not included in the report, and (B) inevident in that WB assertions are demonstrably false, renders the IG statement dubious ... at best.
the IG separately obtained other information during its preliminary review that supported the allegations to deem them credible.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:18 am to cahoots
So is a game of telephone sufficient?
Where do the hands stop?
12th hand?
Where do the hands stop?
12th hand?
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:20 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Yes. Nailed it. A member of the intelligence community filing a whistleblower complaint against the president of the United States is exactly like a title transfer on your car. No need to have accurate forms.
There is a need to have accurate forms which is why it was revised
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:21 am to roadGator
quote:
So is a game of telephone sufficient?
Bro, I didn't write the statute for whistleblower complaints. I'm trying to interpret it. It's tough because your side is saying dumb shite like "the WB must have fist hand info" and "the rules changed." bullshite.
The WB can file with second hand info. The IG just has to use first hand info to deem it credible. Now I don't know what actually happened because the IG is ambiguous.
This post was edited on 10/2/19 at 8:23 am
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:23 am to bmy
quote:Where was the "first-hand" information in the report? The "first-hand" information is requisite to validate WB concerns. In fact the phone conversation transcript not only does not validate WB concerns, it invalidates them. Yet those invalidated concerns were nonetheless forwarded to Congress and deemed "credible".
It does not say that the first hand information must come from the whistleblower. That's part of the vetting process.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:24 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
But it wasn’t credible. How do you not see that? Key facts were incorrect, key people were incorrect. If the ICIG is claiming that he somehow corroborated factually incorrect information, then he should be fired immediately.
Is a single incorrect fact enough to throw out a whistleblower complaint? Two? A percentage? Where should that line be drawn?
I don't think small things being wrong (like who listened in on the call) should be disqualifying.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Where was the "first-hand" information in the report? The "first-hand" information is requisite to validate WB concerns. In fact the phone conversation transcript not only does not validate WB concerns, it invalidates them. Yet those invalidated concerns were nonetheless forwarded to Congress and deemed "credible".
That's the judgment of the IG. I don't know the answer to your questions, but I do know that most of the info the right is peddling about WB's is incorrect
Willfully misreporting and misstating what the statute is
This post was edited on 10/2/19 at 8:27 am
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In fact the phone conversation transcript not only does not validate WB concerns, it invalidates them. Yet those invalidated concerns were nonetheless forwarded to Congress and deemed "credible".
wrongPosted on 10/2/19 at 8:34 am to cahoots
quote:No it isn't. First-hand information is first-hand information. PERIOD!
That's the judgment of the IG.
There was NO first hand information, at least as far as I can ascertain, in the transmitted report. If you know of any, even a single line, please cite it.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:49 am to gthog61
quote:
And even if the “whistleblower” testified that doesn’t mean it isn’t an actor playing a role
This is all Christine Blasey Ford was.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
No it isn't. First-hand information is first-hand information. PERIOD!
There was NO first hand information, at least as far as I can ascertain, in the transmitted report. If you know of any, even a single line, please cite it.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are alleging that the IG of the intel community, nominated by Trump and confirmed by the senate in 2018, is acting in violation of the WB statues for transmission?
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:51 am to cahoots
It just seems crazy that you guys put on your tin foil hats for nearly everyone around trump. Tomorrow you'll be saying that Giuliani has it out for Trump.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:52 am to cahoots
The pivot from muh Russians to Muh Ukraine has been fun to watch.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:54 am to cahoots
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are alleging that the IG of the intel community, nominated by Trump and confirmed by the senate in 2018, is acting in violation of the WB statues for transmission?
This is very likely, could be incompetence, but this is very likely from what’s been released
This is very likely, could be incompetence, but this is very likely from what’s been released
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:54 am to bmy
quote:WB CLAIMS:
wrong
The President pressured Mr. Zelensky to initiate or continue an investigation - FALSE.
President abused his office for personal gain - FALSE.
Aside from dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 U.S. election, nothing else was discussed - FALSE.
Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call - FALSE.
White House officials broke protocol to uniquely "lock down" all records of this phone call - FALSE.
This act is an abuse of this electronic system because the call did
not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective - FALSE.
That is just a start.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 9:06 am to cahoots
quote:The facts are what they are. The WB report is public info and speaks for itself. My quotes regarding statutory requirements of the ICWPA come directly from the Office of the ICIG.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are alleging that the IG of the intel community, nominated by Trump and confirmed by the senate in 2018, is acting in violation of the WB statues for transmission?
No speculation there. Just facts.
An ICIG report only inclusive of information failing to meet "first-hand" threshold requirements of the ICWPA was transmitted to Congress.
It is what it is.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 9:17 am to gthog61
The whistle blower is irrelevent. He pointed to transcripts and people with fist hand knowledge. The damnation or vindication will come from those folks and documents, not the whistleblower.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 9:28 am to bmy
quote:
I don't think small things being wrong (like who listened in on the call) should be disqualifying.
Oh, but if only that’s where the inaccuracies ended. The WB alleges QPQ with military aid. It alleges repeated, strong arm tactics to get Biden investigated. The very core of the complaint is wrong. And we have no idea of the provenance of the information. You assume it’s second hand, but you have no clue how many layers are there, and with those layers come problems.
The ICIG could have made 3 phone calls and found enough smoke to, at minimum, send the complaint back and suggest they better reenforce the accusations.
Stop pretending like you don’t clearly understand the issues here. And stop carrying on as if this complaint was anything more than another dem engineered lawfare tactic.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 9:35 am to Jbird
quote:
The pivot from muh Russians to Muh Ukraine has been fun to watch.
It's really fun watching the number of people, including basically the entirety of the mainstream media, who are able to pretend that there is nothing absurd about this pivot AT ALL.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News