Why did Intel agencies change rules days before whistleblower report was sent?

[Always in His Presence]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...rement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

 

[NightHawkeye]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...rement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

Because Intelligence communities represent the 'deep state'?

 

[dailyprayerwarrior]

This is very interesting. What is going to come out over the next while is going to expose a lot of things that were kept hidden. No matter what you hear and read, God is moving and His plan is on schedule.

 

[com7fy8]

to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

I think that in American courts, if your claim is not from firsthand witnessing, it is called "hearsay" evidence and is likely not accepted in a court of American law.

Even so > it can help to get tips, but then follow them up with proof or proof that you do not have proof. But when things fail to be proven, this can help to direct an investigation elsewhere.

And there can be times when at first you find out you don't have proof; so you move it along, but then proof brings you back

 

[Hank77]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...rement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

Quote from the Federalist -
"Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.


“I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call,” the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported that Brechbuhl was not on the phone call."

How did the Federalist make this determination?
"The complaint against the president says Ulrich Brechbuhl, the counselor to the State Department, was listening in on the July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. According to CBS News’ Christina Ruffini, that is false.

“Senior Govt Official tells @CBSNews Counselor to the State Department Ulrich Brechbuhl was NOT on the @POTUS call with #Zelensky, as the whistle blower complaint states,” wrote Ruffini on Twitter."
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...eblower-botched-yet-another-major-allegation/

Through media/CBS "fake news", written in a Twitter acc't, AND they got their information from where? An unnamed Senior Gov. Official. In other words hearsay/gossip. Hearsay from the media that can't be trusted.

 

[childeye 2]

Theoretically if a crook became the chief law enforcement officer in the U.S.... then justice would need to find new avenues that were "secret".

 

[Always in His Presence]

Through media/CBS "fake news", written in a Twitter acc't, AND they got their information from where? An unnamed Senior Gov. Official. In other words hearsay/gossip. Hearsay from the media that can't be trusted.

It’s the new standard of excellence. If it is good enough for congress to open an impeachment based off a hearsay report.

 

[com7fy8]

If there is a claim by media that they got a report from someone who is under oath not to release such information . . . why would they trust a report from someone who betrays his or her oath?? Also, by the way, I am not sure freedom of the press means it is ok to let out information which comes from a betrayer, or which is classified, and/or which can result in harm to an undercover operator, for example. Freedom is meant so you are free to express your opinions, not so you can bring harm wrongly, without a fair trial.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I was told that someone heard someone else say they heard Trump say he would be more flexible with Putin after the election. The person that told me that is an anonymous source and I want to also remain anonymous. That should make the case for impeachment solid as a rock.

 

[childeye 2]

What really matters is that any articles of impeachment won't be based on hearsay.

 

[Hank77]

It’s the new standard of excellence. If it is good enough for congress to open an impeachment based off a hearsay report.

The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community conducted an investigation as to credibility. Do we know if he met with the whistleblower and with people who provide the information to the whistleblower?

 

[Hank77]

If there is a claim by media that they got a report from someone who is under oath not to release such information

What oath are you referring to?

 

[SimplyMe]

It’s the new standard of excellence. If it is good enough for congress to open an impeachment based off a hearsay report.

How many investigations of Sec. Clinton were done by Republicans, some even after previous investigations had shown no wrong doing? Seems the Democrats at least have a slightly higher standard than Republicans do, as to opening investigations -- in this case they had a whistleblower complaint that the IG found "credible" and "an urgent concern."

 

[Always in His Presence]

How many investigations of Sec. Clinton were done by Republicans, some even after previous investigations had shown no wrong doing? Seems the Democrats at least have a slightly higher standard than Republicans do, as to opening investigations -- in this case they had a whistleblower complaint that the IG found "credible" and "an urgent concern."

Just a reminder with Clinton there was 30,000 emails deleted, the hard drives erased or physically smashed, AFTER she received a subpoena instructing their retention and delivery to congress.

The then director of the FBI confirming she lied to Congress six separate times

And four dead bodies.

That’s a little stronger than a report based on hearsay evidence.


You were saying?

 

[iluvatar5150]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...rement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

This is a good thing. You and everybody else, particularly those in favor of draining the swamp, should be cheering this.

If wrongdoing is occurring and knowledge of it is limited to a handful of people, then any whistleblower under the old system would necessarily have to come from that small group and would likely be outed rather quickly. Not requiring first hand knowledge allows the person who fears reprisal to blow the whistle via a proxy.

 

[SimplyMe]

Just a reminder with Clinton there was 30,000 emails deleted, the hard drives erased or physically smashed, AFTER she received a subpoena instructing their retention and delivery to congress.

The then director of the FBI confirming she lied to Congress six separate times

And four dead bodies.

That’s a little stronger than a report based on hearsay evidence.


You were saying?

Nice strawman. I never claimed none of the investigations were unwarranted but, seriously, why nine (I think it was) separate investigations on Benghazi alone? There was no new evidence, no new allegations -- why all of those investigations? The Uranium story is another one -- it has been investigated at least a couple of times and no wrongdoing has ever been found, there is no new evidence, yet Republicans still want more investigations because...?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Nice strawman. I never claimed none of the investigations were unwarranted but, seriously, why nine (I think it was) separate investigations on Benghazi alone? There was no new evidence, no new allegations -- why all of those investigations? The Uranium story is another one -- it has been investigated at least a couple of times and no wrongdoing has ever been found, there is no new evidence, yet Republicans still want more investigations because...?

Because it’s not about reality anymore. It’s about keeping the con going so tgeir voters think they’re all still winning.

 

[com7fy8]

What oath are you referring to?

I just checked the Net > yes, there is a security of information oath which government people at least sign, when trusted to operate in ways that they get information which is classified. There are specifications about if and when and to whom they may release that information.

When people take positions of high trust in military and law enforcement and government function, there are various oaths they take to uphold the law, defend the United States Constitution, and to protect the people of the United States of America. And included in the application of this is ones give their word they will not betray classified information to those not having a security clearance for knowing that information. We have heard politicians give an oath when . . . sworn . . . into office.

Also, for even maybe less levels of effect on others, a person getting a marriage license swears under oath, at least where I am, that he or she is not already married

And in some professions it is even illegal to give out certain information about people being served, for example in the legal and counseling and medical professions.

So, I am basing what I have said on this general information. If someone is trusted to know classified and private things of government function, it is clear they must not give out info they know to unauthorized people, and they know they have been trusted not to do this. It is illegal and there can be oaths involved, but I do not know the exact details.

But . . . information might not be protected if it is about illegal activities being covered up. So, I might need to be corrected about saying a whistleblower has betrayed classified information, if the person was letting out info about what is grounds for impeachment. But probably who gets the info legally before it is confirmed would be an issue, even so. And whoever is accused is guaranteed the right under Constitutional law to know who the accuser is and to face him or her in a court of law. So, sneaky unidentified sources might not be legal for different reasons.

 

[Hank77]

I just checked the Net > yes, there is a security of information oath which government people at least sign, when trusted to operate in ways that they get information which is classified. There are specifications about if and when and to whom they may release that information.

Where did you find it on the net? What topic did you goggle? Thanks
Of coarse I agree with you that classified information needs to be protected.

 

[com7fy8]

Where did you find it on the net?

Look up with words like "secrecy" and "oath", and there are various items which you can select from.

But I notice the oath can be just a written item which a person signs. So, to some extent I might have jumped to conclusions.