- 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 6:13 am to texridder
Posted on 10/2/19 at 6:13 am to texridder
quote:First of all, "never" in case of the ICIG is only a couple of years. Right?
The IC whistleblower statute does not require first hand information on a complaint. It never has.
Second, you are perhaps conflating general whistleblower complaints with those deemed "credible" and "urgent" thus requiring transmission to Congress. Here is the language describing requisites of the ICWPA process:
quote:The confusion about the whistleblower form is generated from the fact the ICIG chose to transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge and speculation about the existence of wrongdoing.
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. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.) Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA. If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.
As such an action is not in keeping with past enforcement of the law, or with past statutory requirements of the ICWPA, most here and in the media assumed the law must have changed. As it turns out, the law did not change. It appears the ICIG simply chose to skate around it by recategorizing second-hand knowledge as first-hand information.
Regardless, the actions in this instance are disabling of separation of powers and anti-Constitutional. If language in the ICIG law is unclear, it should be amended to address that. If the ICWPA statute is clear and requires first-hand knowledge, this ICIG should be fired.
1
Posted on 10/2/19 at 6:34 am to Eli Goldfinger
Well whoever this spy whistle blower is when he testifys they should grill him on each section of the complaint as he surely didn’t write it a team of lawyers did.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 6:36 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
whistleblower complaints with those deemed "credible" and "urgent" thus requiring transmission to Congress. Here is the language describing requisites of the ICWPA process:
"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."
The confusion about the whistleblower form is generated from the fact the ICIG chose to transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge and speculation about the existence of wrongdoing.
As such an action is not in keeping with past enforcement of the law, or with past statutory requirements of the ICWPA, most here and in the media assumed the law must have changed. As it turns out, the law did not change. It appears the ICIG simply chose to skate around it by recategorizing second-hand knowledge as first-hand information.
It doesn't say that to prevent whistleblowers from submitting reports based on secondhand knowledge. It's to note that reports that will not be forwarded on unless the IG was able to obtain relevant first hand information.
E.g. I hear someone bragging about their luxurious hotel and room service they enjoyed while on a work trip with their supervisor. The IG might look at those receipts, then use THAT information and not just my hearsay.
This post was edited on 10/2/19 at 6:40 am
Posted on 10/2/19 at 6:41 am to Eli Goldfinger
You are insane. The inspector general did not make up a fictitious character. Take off the tin foil hat, dude.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 6:52 am to Mulat
quote:
If President Pence is smart he will declare Marshal Law immediately
Let’s try Martial Law instead.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 6:52 am to bmy
Even you don't believe that happened in this case. Some of the references were media reports for crissakes.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 7:20 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Even you don't believe that happened in this case. Some of the references were media reports for crissakes.
I think that's exactly what happened. Finding the complaint credible <> finding the allegations in the complaint correct.
Even guys like McCarthy and Lindsey Graham have adopted arguments like "the President was wrong but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachable conduct" or "you don't get impeached for a parking ticket".
Posted on 10/2/19 at 7:21 am to Eli Goldfinger
This a-hole would be a hero, why does he want to stay hidden?
Maybe he is a dem hack and everybody would see it
Maybe he is a dem hack and everybody would see it
Posted on 10/2/19 at 7:23 am to 10MTNTiger
quote:
Here is the version of the complaint before it was edited to allow second hand info:
That doesn't exist! What you are seeing is a mirage!
- texrider
Posted on 10/2/19 at 7:26 am to Geauxst Writer
quote:
Take off the tin foil hat, dude.
How's that Russian collusion going?
Posted on 10/2/19 at 7:46 am to 10MTNTiger
quote:
Your assertion that there has “never” been a requirement for first hand information is absolutely false.
The law does not require first hand information. What's on the form is literally irrelevant
it's a fricking form Imagine you go to your brand new municipality courthouse to transfer a title on a vehicle. You provide your information and pay your fee as required in their ordinance but the form incorrectly lists an old address with the note "This document must be submitted to the office at 7655 Old Address Blvd" (uh oh that building was torn down) -- think they broke the law by processing your form?
Sometimes forms are wrong or misleading.. at the end of the day forms are just tools to help convey statutory requirements and to streamline the relevant process.
This post was edited on 10/2/19 at 7:47 am
Posted on 10/2/19 at 7:50 am to Geauxst Writer
quote:
The inspector general did not make up a fictitious character. Take off the tin foil hat, dude.
The so called whistler blower is going to turn out to be a part of team by any means necessary.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 7:56 am to bmy
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.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 7:58 am to bmy
quote:As I stated above.
It doesn't say that to prevent whistleblowers from submitting reports based on secondhand knowledge. It's to note that reports that will not be forwarded on unless the IG was able to obtain relevant first hand information.
and . . .
THERE WAS NO SUCH INFORMATION FORWARDED!
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:01 am to bmy
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.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:04 am to bmy
quote:Within the entirety of the law that is true. The entirety of the "law" is not in question. However, within the law, not all complaints are of equal importance. Accordingly, what is in question is the element of the law which elevates complaints to the level of "urgent and credible," therefore requiring transmission to Congress.
The law does not require first hand information.
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.
This post was edited on 10/2/19 at 8:09 am
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:09 am to NC_Tigah
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
This post was edited on 10/2/19 at 8:13 am
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:14 am to cahoots
quote:The complaint is in the public domain. In the complaint there is no first-hand information. Further, there are multiple false and uncorrected claims.
Now, where are you seeing that the complaint is being supported exclusively by second hand info before transmission?
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:15 am to NC_Tigah
Would the whistle blower have to have a reason (plausible) to file the report instead of taking it up the chain of command?
This just appears to be coordinated.
I believe them when they say by any means necesaary.
This just appears to be coordinated.
I believe them when they say by any means necesaary.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 8:16 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The complaint is in the public domain. In the complaint there is no first-hand information. Further, there are multiple false and uncorrected claims.
My understanding is that the complaint itself doesn't have to lay out first hand info. The IG just has to use first hand info to deem it credible and transmit.
This post was edited on 10/2/19 at 8:17 am
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News