It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Imagine for a second that you are the POTUS in a white house full of known leakers and spies. How would you keep your information to insure that it is not exposed willy nilly by any random hyper-partisan person who might come across it? No one has ever done this level of leaking on any president in my recollection other than Donald Trump.
How would you keep your information to insure that it is not exposed willy nilly by any random hyper-partisan person who might come across it?
Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, reported Friday the firsthand knowledge requirement was canned sometime over the past year and change — and while it’s difficult to pin down when, evidence points to August.
“Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,” he wrote.
I can't see hearsay being admitted in to any court case at any level. However, the CIA is basically a spying network, correct?
Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, told the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday that the whistleblower had followed exactly the legal procedure in coming forward and that the complaint was "in alignment" with a memo of the call released by the White House on Wednesday.
If this becomes a court case, the original witness to this phone call must be made to appear in court or it will get tossed out.
They must know who over heard this conversation. Whoever actually heard this had access to the president while he talked or was monitoring it. The list of possible witnesses is likely to be fairly short IMO.
The whistleblower said the complaint was based on information relayed by "more than half a dozen U.S. officials."