- 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
Dems secretly change Whistle Blower law from direct knowledge to accepting heresay
Posted on 10/4/19 at 8:23 am
Posted on 10/4/19 at 8:23 am
And we get 3 WB complaints in a week....who saw that coming?
Anonymous accuser citing anonymous sources with vague accusations using terms like "cause for concern".
The IRS WB complaint literally says he heard 2nd hand a Trump appointee might have interfered with Trumps audit. This would in fact be 3rd hand as he didn't say "the IRS agent told me Trump's appointee interfered with his audit"
If you read the Ukraine transcript and follow media reporting you realize this is the new game plan. Monkey's throwing shite, media towing the line.
Anonymous accuser citing anonymous sources with vague accusations using terms like "cause for concern".
The IRS WB complaint literally says he heard 2nd hand a Trump appointee might have interfered with Trumps audit. This would in fact be 3rd hand as he didn't say "the IRS agent told me Trump's appointee interfered with his audit"
If you read the Ukraine transcript and follow media reporting you realize this is the new game plan. Monkey's throwing shite, media towing the line.
5
Posted on 10/4/19 at 8:46 am to WorkinDawg
Doesn’t this negate the entire spirit of the law?
Posted on 10/4/19 at 8:48 am to WorkinDawg
This is simply not true. Chuck Grassley came out this week and said there has never been a requirement in the whistleblower law that you must have first hand knowledge. He has been a big advocate of whistleblower protection for a long time.
Posted on 10/4/19 at 9:13 am to WorkinDawg
Not to be overly technical, but IRS WB is not covered by the same WB law applicable to the Intel Community.
Not sure whether the IRS has its own WB act or not, but it won't be covered under the ICWBPA.
That being stated, while there is technically no first hand knowledge requirement,* first hand knowledge is extremely relevant in determining the WB's credibility. I have seen some cases where a WB cited some hearsay, but could corroborate it with first hand information and objective facts and documents.
Credibility is fundamentally rooted in reliability and truth, and is intertwined with bias. Here, a complaint that is based entirely on hearsay and double hearsay has demonstrated in real-time why hearsay that cannot be corroborated independently is inherently unreliable.
Now that the bias and other frickery has been exposed, this fricking complaint should have never seen the light of day from the ICIG, and the WB and his co-conspirators should be arrested.
What say you, Mr. Atkinson?
ETA:
*In the statute. The ICIG form clearly stated a longstanding policy and/or interpretation by the ICIG that 1st hand knowledge was required. The change to allow this specific complaint in, coupled with all the other shite we now know vis-a-vis Schitts coordination, reaks of frickery.
Not sure whether the IRS has its own WB act or not, but it won't be covered under the ICWBPA.
That being stated, while there is technically no first hand knowledge requirement,* first hand knowledge is extremely relevant in determining the WB's credibility. I have seen some cases where a WB cited some hearsay, but could corroborate it with first hand information and objective facts and documents.
Credibility is fundamentally rooted in reliability and truth, and is intertwined with bias. Here, a complaint that is based entirely on hearsay and double hearsay has demonstrated in real-time why hearsay that cannot be corroborated independently is inherently unreliable.
Now that the bias and other frickery has been exposed, this fricking complaint should have never seen the light of day from the ICIG, and the WB and his co-conspirators should be arrested.
What say you, Mr. Atkinson?
ETA:
*In the statute. The ICIG form clearly stated a longstanding policy and/or interpretation by the ICIG that 1st hand knowledge was required. The change to allow this specific complaint in, coupled with all the other shite we now know vis-a-vis Schitts coordination, reaks of frickery.
This post was edited on 10/4/19 at 9:20 am
Posted on 10/4/19 at 9:16 am to WorkinDawg
Didn’t John Brennan signal to his minions to start the complaints via Twitter recently?
Posted on 10/4/19 at 9:48 am to WorkinDawg
quote:
Dems secretly change Whistle Blower law from direct knowledge to accepting heresay
Please stop lying
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News