We're definitely not supposed to question why the standards for submitting whistleblower complaints were changed just last month to allow complaints based on secondhand information to be deemed credible.
As far as we know, the whistleblower complaint contains no direct, firsthand information, which until last month was a requirement for a complaint to be considered credible.
The intelligence community inspector general released a statement that confirmed Davis' reporting, and admitted that its complaint form and policies regarding evidentiary requirements had been altered in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed in August.
The ICIG statement revealed the whistleblower had used the old complaint form, which explicitly stated that firsthand knowledge was required in order for a complaint to be considered credible.
The ICIG has 14 days after receiving a complaint to determine whether it's credible, and if so the complaint is passed along to the director of national intelligence.
In order for the complaint to be considered an "Urgent concern," and be passed along to Congress, it has to meet three criteria: it must be found credible, it must be related to an intelligence activity, and the complaint must be against an employee or contractor of the intelligence community.
The ICIG ignored that determination and notified Congress even though the complaint didn't meet the statutory definition of an "Urgent concern." The ICIG's statement notably doesn't say when the complaint form was changed to reflect new evidentiary standards that allow complaints with only secondhand information to be deemed credible.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/02/americans-have-every-reason-to-be-suspicious-of-the-whistleblower-complaint/
As far as we know, the whistleblower complaint contains no direct, firsthand information, which until last month was a requirement for a complaint to be considered credible.
The intelligence community inspector general released a statement that confirmed Davis' reporting, and admitted that its complaint form and policies regarding evidentiary requirements had been altered in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed in August.
The ICIG statement revealed the whistleblower had used the old complaint form, which explicitly stated that firsthand knowledge was required in order for a complaint to be considered credible.
The ICIG has 14 days after receiving a complaint to determine whether it's credible, and if so the complaint is passed along to the director of national intelligence.
In order for the complaint to be considered an "Urgent concern," and be passed along to Congress, it has to meet three criteria: it must be found credible, it must be related to an intelligence activity, and the complaint must be against an employee or contractor of the intelligence community.
The ICIG ignored that determination and notified Congress even though the complaint didn't meet the statutory definition of an "Urgent concern." The ICIG's statement notably doesn't say when the complaint form was changed to reflect new evidentiary standards that allow complaints with only secondhand information to be deemed credible.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/02/americans-have-every-reason-to-be-suspicious-of-the-whistleblower-complaint/
No comments:
Post a Comment