,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. An in depth look at the statement the ICIG put out yesterday explaining why they changed their whistle blower forms to allow second hand info.
2. The media has been touting this statement as proof we were wrong in saying the form was changed, once more proving their corruption as actually this proves we were right.
I have the following questions and concerns after reading this.
I have the following questions and concerns after reading this.
3. The statement implies people could have mistakenly read the previous form to think first hand knowledge was necessary.
Thats not true, as the previous form was very explicit several times only first hand info would be accepted.
Thats not true, as the previous form was very explicit several times only first hand info would be accepted.
4. This shows to me this statement is misleading, and makes me wonder if its misleading elsewhere.
5. Although its not written in the law, what qualifies as urgent concern is up to the discretion of the IG.
Why did the previous IG feel first hand info was necessary in order to believe it was urgent concern?
Why did the previous IG feel first hand info was necessary in order to believe it was urgent concern?
6. Did these forms before the previous May 2018 form make it explicit second hand info was not accepted?
If so , does this mean the new form set out for this whistle blower is the first to say second hand info is acceptable?
If so , does this mean the new form set out for this whistle blower is the first to say second hand info is acceptable?
7. Will the IG being reaching out to past intel employees who may have had second hand info on Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, or others, but didnt come forward because they were misled into thinking they would not be protected because they didnt have first hand knowledge?
