I answered it many times, you need to learn to read!Learn to read!I answered the question, you just can't handle the truth that ALL your sources are liars making a foolish SUCKER out of you1That is what the ICIG report says, showing just how BIG a SUCKER your Right-wing sources made out of YOU!!!!!I know the FAKE NEWS article doesn't say that, I cited the actual ICIG report the FAKE NEWS article claims to cite, that is why it is FAKE NEWS!!!!!!!Pure projection!The IGin this case the lie is a half truthThe Federalist is FAKE NEWS!Yes they didIts odd that the whistleblower rules changed just in time for it to hurt trumpNot true, of course. No surprise there!"Atkinson saw to it that the 'Whistle-blower' form was updated just in time to allow for second hand information"
No they didn't.
ICIG Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions
A Monday press release from the ICIG admitting it changed whistleblower rules and forms raises explosive new questions about the anti-Trump complaint.thefederalist.com
THE ACTUAL LAW WAS NOT CHANGED, AND EVEN YOU KNOW IT!
The law was not changed
but the regulation implementing the law was changed
read the reference given and you wont have to ask
They'll rather argue without reading the reference.
I read the reference and quoted directly from it to expose your lie.
Here it is again:
The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018
The article does not say anything even close to that.
It does say that "The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIGās previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. "
If he used that form, he must have known that whistle blower did not meet the requirements, as specified on the form.
From the text: "ICIG also explicitly admitted it changed its policies because of the anti-Trump complaint, raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint".
Here is what the actual ICIG report says:
"The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018"
The ICIG report also says this:
"The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, āI have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involvedā; and the second box stated that, āOther employees have told me about events or records involved.ā As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainantās Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainantās Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could āprovide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions"
Are you saying whistle blower had direct knowledge of Trump's phone call?
Why don't you answer the question?
You answered what you haven't been asked. The question was: "Are you saying whistle blower had direct knowledge of Trump's phone call? "
the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainantās Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainantās Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could āprovide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions"
I did not asked you what ICIG said, I asked you "Are you saying whistle blower had direct knowledge of Trump's phone call? "
Answer the question.
direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct,
You telling me to learn how to read? LOL
I didn't ask you to quote ICIG, I asked you three times the same question: "Are you saying whistle blower had direct knowledge of Trump's phone call?"