It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude
The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed
both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as
other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared
credible.
It should be noted that I'm not even a vocal supporter of impeachment. I may not like Trump but I've never backed impeachment. I'm simply pointing out the fact that the most spouted attempts to smear this whistleblower are false.
Apparently the whistleblower did provide first-hand information that was deemed credible and urgent. Apparently this whistleblower wasn't held to a different standard than those that came before.
So if the whistleblower did everything according to law, why do you want their identity revealed?
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: seeker1963
To actually change the rules surrounding whistleblower complaints it would require an act of Congress. Remember that the Whistleblower Protection Act is an actual law in the USC. It isn't just some departmental policy.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Agit8dChop
And the whistleblower had first-hand information. So what's the issue?
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Veryolduser
So in other words you want people to listen to second/third-hand reporting that confirms your narrative instead of listening to the actual source that reviewed the form and determined that there was enough information to suggest an urgent and legitimate concern?
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Agit8dChop
And the whistleblower had first-hand information. So what's the issue?
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Veryolduser
So in other words you want people to listen to second/third-hand reporting that confirms your narrative instead of listening to the actual source that reviewed the form and determined that there was enough information to suggest an urgent and legitimate concern?
originally posted by: Agit8dChop
APNews is on the same level as CNN unfortunately.
The whistleblower form was revised in august 2019
here it is - there's a clear box asking if your complaint is first hand or second hand
www.dni.gov...
here's the submission form from 2018
www.scribd.com...
Which clearly has the requirement:
In order to find an urgent concern credible the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information.
So yes, the form was changed from needing firsthand info, to simply asking if your info is first or second hand.
Trump also said
WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!
the form was changed, when and why - who knows.
but there was a specific point that FIRST HAND information was required - coincidentally, that no longer exists on the new form.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Veryolduser
So in other words you want people to listen to second/third-hand reporting that confirms your narrative instead of listening to the actual source that reviewed the form and determined that there was enough information to suggest an urgent and legitimate concern?
originally posted by: PilSungMtnMan
The Dems/MSM ran an organized effort to unseat a duly elected President using fake evidence and illegal FISA warrants and THIS is what has some peeps all spun up?
MAGA 2020
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: seeker1963
To actually change the rules surrounding whistleblower complaints it would require an act of Congress. Remember that the Whistleblower Protection Act is an actual law in the USC. It isn't just some departmental policy.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So can we stop perpetuating this false conspiracy theory?