September 29, 2019 by David John Weaver @davidjohnweave
1) What is Whistleblowing according to the Intelligence Committee Inspector General?
“Whistleblowing is the lawful disclosure of information a discloser reasonably believes
Key words: “lawful disclosure of information“, “reasonably believes”
Up until August 15th (see ) the Intelligence Community Inspector General required first-hand knowledge as
Every Organization of the US Government has different standards for a whistleblower. What do other US Organizations demand to be classified a “whistleblower”: first hand evidence.
According to KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
Key words: ”original
According to TAF (Taxpayers Against Fraud), in order to qualify as a whistleblower under the False Claims Act, certain conditions must be met, including: “The whistleblower should have actual knowledge of the fraud,
Key words: “reasonable belief “, “accurate “, “never…suspicion or office gossip”
Let’s review the key words for these other US Government organizations. The SEC and
“The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official
“However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. “
The TAF states these key words,
And, the general guidance for federal employee whistleblowers, Key
I’m pretty sure you get the point of my research and analysis at this time: this does not meet whistleblower standards and a severe breach of Classification has occurred.
Let’s review the key words of
The complainant wasn’t on the call, and wasn’t in proximity of anyone on that call,
Did not have Clearance to have or review the transcript or if they had Clearance they surly did not have Clearance to disseminate the transcript, because NO Transcript was
Didn’t have accurate information on what the call entailed as evidenced by their letter to Sen. Burr and Rep Schiff, and, just in case anyone believes the claimant attached said transcript to
Let’s turn to the transcript and the key words, “lawful disclosure of information“. If this claimant didn’t have Clearance to view the transcript then they DID NOT have Clearance to hear about
Why does this NOT meet the ICIG standards? Why should you be overly concerned anyway? Here’s why to both
Another point I must make; this is the IC we’re discussing! How many campaigns of disinformation etc. need to be proven false before we NEVER listen to IC
This claimant is another Deep State operative. The Deep State also managed to change the complaint form from first-hand knowledge to hearsay is admissible at just the right time didn’t they? As my French friends say, Merde!