re: Dems secretly change Whistle Blower law from direct knowledge to accepting heresay

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.