Son of former IC IG: "There’s never been a requirement that a whistleblower have 1st hand knowledge"

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Republicans (and message board trolls) have been spreading the false claim that whistleblowers are required to have themselves first-hand knowledge about the claims he makes. What must be first-hand information is the evidence gathered by the IG (Such as a conversation transcript, which was made public, or interviews with people who had first-hand knowledge).

“There’s never been a requirement that a whistleblower have firsthand knowledge of what they’re reporting,” said Irvin McCullough, an investigator at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (and the son of a former IC IG). “They need to have a reasonable belief. The firsthand information is usually gathered by the inspector general, as I believe did occur here.”

Gee, should I believe Hannity and message board people or the son of a former intelligence IG?
GOP Shows Russian Trolls How It’s Done With Whistleblower Smear

Note: funny stickers can't change requirements.

So, wizard, the IG didn't have the Trump transcript until he released it. Which was after the complaint was made public.

And the transcript shows there was no quid pro quo discussed.

And if there was never a first hand knowledge requirement then why was the form changed?

nope! the notes of the transcript actually shows there was a quid pro quo

YOU need to read it....

AND we need to see the full transcript of the full conversation

quid pro quo is not necessary either, on some of the alleged crimes he committed

State the crimes. You can't.

Post the statue. You can't.

Post any reference to you will get money when you do "something? You can't.

Now post the damn crime and reference.

 

[bendog]

Then: (notice the date, upper right corner)

Now:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...CODE-2015-title50-chap44-subchapI-sec3033.pdf

Section K(5) is the part that covers it.

Find the part in the actual law that says it has to be firsthand knowledge.

It doesn't.

The law says in order for the complaint to be passed to Congress the IC IG has to find it credible.

The IC IG rules were in order to find a complaint credible it had to be first hand knowledge (only common sense)

They changed the rules so the IC IG could find it credible.

 

[bendog]

Here is the law the form was based off, what the form says is really irrelevant.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...CODE-2015-title50-chap44-subchapI-sec3033.pdf

Section K(5) is the part that covers it.

The law is unchanged since January 3, 2016

Read it for yourself instead of relying on someone else.

The law is clear that first hand knowledge is not a requirement. And it would not make sense. Even a FISA warrant does not need first hand knowledge by the person requesting the warrant, but the person has to swear he's relying upon what someone with first hand knowledge told him/her.

It's an investigation, not a trial. And the senate isn't going to convict Trump even if he flat out extorted Ukraine.

 

[bendog]

I still have no idea why even people like Gramps who are not Trumpstettes continually fall for the TrumpFakeNewsMedia lies.

Title 50 Sec. 3033 United States Code

Subsection (k)(5)(D):



(D)

(i) If the Inspector General does not find credible under subparagraph (B) a complaint or information submitted under subparagraph (A), or does not transmit the complaint or information to the Director in accurate form under subparagraph (B), the employee (subject to clause (ii)) may submit the complaint or information to Congress by contacting either or both of the congressional intelligence committees directly.

(ii) An employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee—(I) before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and(II) obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices.

(iii) A member or employee of one of the congressional intelligence committees who receives a complaint or information under this subparagraph does so in that member or employee’s official capacity as a member or employee of such committee

Even if the IG does not find a report credible, the whistleblower can send the complaint to congress. And that was what happened. BillBarr/RayCohn ordered the complaint sunk, but the whistleblower said he wouldn't be silenced, which he/she can do under D(I)(B), and that's when a "reconstructed" transcript appeared and the whistleblower complaint was declassified by the WH and made public (under pressure from the Senate gop, because if Trump heads south on the facts of this, the gop isn't going down with him.)

Juan Williams: Trump's grip on GOP Senate may come loose

 

[MAGAman]

nope! the notes of the transcript actually shows there was a quid pro quo

YOU need to read it....

AND we need to see the full transcript of the full conversation

quid pro quo is not necessary either, on some of the alleged crimes he committed

Nope. No quid pro quo.

That's why you can't quote it.

No evidence of as anything improper.

Russian Collusion 2.0.