Ukraine Whistleblower May Not Testify In Person

[bripat9643]

They did change the rule, dumbass:

Intelligence community changed whistleblower rules to include hearsay shortly before complaint was filed

The Federalist investigation revealed …

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

The newly revised whistleblower document, called a “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, was uploaded September 24, a few days before the Trump complaint was declassified and publicly released. Markings indicate the form was actually revised in August 2019.​

The Federalist is full of shit! The law does not require first hand knowledge, just a "reasonable belief."
Here is what the actual law says:
2. The term “Protected Disclosure” is defined as: a. A disclosure of information by an employee to a supervisor in the employee’s direct chain of command up to and including the head of the employing agency, to the Inspector General (IG) of the employing agency or employing IC element, to the DNI, to the Inspector General of the IC (IC IG), or to a congressional intelligence committee or a member of a congressional intelligence committee consistent with the procedures prescribed by Congress in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, Section 8H of the Inspector General Act of 1978, and similar provisions in Section 103H of the National Security Act of 1947 and Section 17 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, or to an employee designated by any of the above officials for the purpose of receiving such disclosures, that the employee reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety;

The law did require it previously, moron. That's the point of the article.

Your quote is a non sequitur. How "protected person" is defined is irrelevant.

The law is from 2014

They changed the requirements a couple of months ago, dumbass.

The law has NOT been changed since 2014,

The form changed, moron. And the rules for using the form were changed.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Hah! Indeed there is.

Then I suggest you tell us, specifically, how this perjury trap was set up to ensnare the idiot-in-chief.

I suggest that you, specifically, look up the MO and educate yourself.

While I will on occasion offer remedial education, I doubt that you could cover my fees.

All you had to do was, specifically, state, I have no idea, I'm just repeating what I'm told to say.

There isn't anything you could educate me on. As a matter of fact, I seriously doubt you even graduated high school.

If you only knew. Your defensive posture is amusing.

I see you still can't tell me, specifically, how this perjury trap was set up to ensnare the idiot-in-chief.

I see you still can't understand what "fees" are, or the concept of self-education.

 

[edthecynic]

The Federalist is full of shit! The law does not require first hand knowledge, just a "reasonable belief."
Here is what the actual law says:
2. The term “Protected Disclosure” is defined as: a. A disclosure of information by an employee to a supervisor in the employee’s direct chain of command up to and including the head of the employing agency, to the Inspector General (IG) of the employing agency or employing IC element, to the DNI, to the Inspector General of the IC (IC IG), or to a congressional intelligence committee or a member of a congressional intelligence committee consistent with the procedures prescribed by Congress in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, Section 8H of the Inspector General Act of 1978, and similar provisions in Section 103H of the National Security Act of 1947 and Section 17 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, or to an employee designated by any of the above officials for the purpose of receiving such disclosures, that the employee reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety;

The law did require it previously, moron. That's the point of the article.

Your quote is a non sequitur. How "protected person" is defined is irrelevant.

The law is from 2014

They changed the requirements a couple of months ago, dumbass.

The law has NOT been changed since 2014,

The form changed, moron. And the rules for using the form were changed.

LIAR!
The law was last updated in 2014, no amount of your lying can change that fact. The actual law, which I quoted in this very string, NEVER required first hand knowledge, only a reasonable belief.

 

[WEATHER53]

The law did require it previously, moron. That's the point of the article.

Your quote is a non sequitur. How "protected person" is defined is irrelevant.

The law is from 2014

They changed the requirements a couple of months ago, dumbass.

The law has NOT been changed since 2014,

The form changed, moron. And the rules for using the form were changed.

LIAR!
The law was last updated in 2014, no amount of your lying can change that fact. The actual law, which I quoted in this very string, NEVER required first hand knowledge, only a reasonable belief.

Incorrect
The reasonable belief belief is that what they actually heard they have a reasonable belief is a violation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was one of his "facts," moron

Wrong, idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

That was one of his "facts," moron

Wrong, idiot.

Are you going to go around saying everything Trump haters get wrong "an opinion?"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you going to go around saying everything Trump haters get wrong "an opinion?"

Oh, I share his opinion. Get that straight.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Are you going to go around saying everything Trump haters get wrong "an opinion?"

Oh, I share his opinion. Get that straight.

No one cares.