, 21 tweets, 7 min read Read on Twitter
What defines a US Federal Whistleblower?

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
2) evidences wrongdoing to an authorized recipient.”
Key words: “lawful disclosure of information“, “reasonably believes”

Up until August 15th (see ) the Intelligence Community Inspector General required first-hand knowledge as
3) well. Again, I ask why change that NOW?

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.

4) and CFTC whistleblower programs - Under the SEC and CFTC whistleblower programs, individuals who voluntarily provide original information or original analysis of securities or commodities violations are eligible to recover whistleblower rewards.”

Key words: ”original
5) information or original analysis”

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,
6) not just a suspicion…”

Workplacefairness.org states that federal employee whistleblowers “… should have a reasonable belief that your disclosure is accurate. You should never proceed with a complaint based merely on suspicion or office gossip. It
7) is important to check your facts carefully before initiating a complaint process.”

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
8) CFTC key words are,” original information or original analysis”. The IC whistleblower admits to not having “original” anything. The claimant states in the letter to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff:
“The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official
9) interagency business.”

“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,
10) “actual knowledge”, “not… suspicion”, for any IRS whistleblowers. This claimant doesn’t have “actual knowledge” as they themselves state above in the letter, and this claim is actually a, “suspicion”.

And, the general guidance for federal employee whistleblowers, Key
11) words: “reasonable belief “, “accurate “, “never…suspicion or office gossip”. Although the IC Community have different standards and requirements that must be approved by the President, these key words are evidence of how all other Federal Employees are held to the standard
12) of “reasonable”, “accurate”, and “never…suspicion or office gossip”.

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
13) the Intelligence Committee Inspector General again: “lawful disclosure of information“, “reasonably believes”. Does the Letter to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff meet these two qualifiers, or not? Did this person, “reasonably believe” that the information was in fact true? I doubt
14) it since:

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
15) provided with the Claim. This is proof the claimant never read the transcript.

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
16) the letter: IF so, why did Rep. Schiff and many others DEMAND the transcript?

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
17) it from those who did/do. Therefore, MANY “colleagues” of this person have broken the laws, rules, and regulations and “relayed” the information to this claimant.

Why does this NOT meet the ICIG standards? Why should you be overly concerned anyway? Here’s why to both
18) questions: rumors, innuendo, libel, slander, disinformation, etc. DO NOT warrant an investigation into anything!

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
19) employees ever again? In just the last 4 years, we learned through this same manner about the Trump-Russian-Collusion Hoax: hundreds of hours of Congressional testimonies, multiple talking head, many so called insiders, and a whole Mueller Special Counsel Investigation
20) proved “no collusion” and “no obstruction”.

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!
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to David John Weaver
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!