Started By
Message

re: It’s becoming clear there is no whistleblower

Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:18 am to
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:18 am to
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.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Member since Sep 2003
125466 posts
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:23 am to
quote:

It does not say that the first hand information must come from the whistleblower. That's part of the vetting process.
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".
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram