re: It’s becoming clear there is no whistleblower

quote:

---

Accordingly, 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.

---

I understand the distinction you are pointing out but that is very different from what the Federalist (and Trump) were saying about second hand info.

Now, where are you seeing that the complaint is being supported exclusively by second hand info before transmission?

quote:

---

The IG said that while the whistleblower was not a direct witness to the call, the IG separately obtained other information during its preliminary review that supported the allegations to deem them credible.

---

LINK

This sounds rather ambiguous to me

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.