Thread by @JohnWHuber

Now that the ICIG has released an official statement, the “IG whistleblower form” controversy is very simple to explain

And the fact most of the media are obscuring and lying about it instead is very revealing

THREAD

—The law does NOT require “firsthand knowledge” of an issue in order to report it as a “whistleblower”

But the DNI/ICIG *interpreted* the statute as requiring firsthand knowledge on at least some of the forms, even including specific guidance saying “ONLY” it would be allowed

—The ICIG admits that the “whistleblower” used the May 2018 version of the form. That’s the **same form where the guidance notes explicitly state that firsthand knowledge is required**

—So what the ICIG needs to explain is: why did it allow the “whistleblower” to submit a disclosure that (at least based on the public reporting so far) appears to be almost entirely secondhand? If the answer is “the law allows it”, OK, but your *interpretation* of that law DIDN’T

—The ICIG admits that in response to “press inquiries”, it updated its most recent whistleblower disclosure form to *eliminate* the requirement for firsthand knowledge to make it “consistent with the statute”

—In other words, the ICIG just admitted that the previous form the “WB” used was *inconsistent* with the statute because it required firsthand information

—What the ICIG/DNI also now need to explain: if the “WB” using the old May 2018 form was 100% fine & legit, why did you the specifically update the forms in response to the press asking questions about it? And not publish them with clear change/version control for transparency?

—Another question for the ICIG/DNI: why did you treat certain media differently?

You ignored @seanmdav questions about changes to the form (key point of which has since been admitted & proven accurate: that the form was changed to eliminate a firsthand knowledge requirement)

—Yet you quietly overhauled your forms & disclosure processes when a different type of media came asking questions: Collusion Media Hoaxers

And you mounted a PR offensive using those same outlets (a source tells me by giving off the record briefings “explaining” the talking pts)

—FYI those initial press inquiries appear to pre-date most public reporting on the issue suggesting like the Collusion Hoax, the “WB” story was being seeded into the media in advance. Which isn’t something you’d do if you were concerned about confidentiality or “safety” of the WB

SUMMARY

—ICIG recently updated its forms to eliminate firsthand knowledge for WB’s (& did so only after certain media asked)

—“WB” used May 18 form which discourages secondhand disclosures (yet ICIG accepted it)

—The IC is spinning, aided by Collusion Media, as usual

/ENDS

N.B. 1. I still think the WB claim should have been taken seriously and investigated by the ICIG/DNI given it is clear the WB held a position affording them access to privileged information and they seem to be being leaked info from multiple high ranking White House officials

N.B. 2. But such an investigation would likely have revealed the WB only had largely (or all) secondhand information, the actual transcript didn’t back up their complaint, their complaint had multiple errors (at least X5) and they and their sub-sources have a major strain of #TDS