“When it comes to whether someone qualifies as a whistleblower, the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren’t legal ones. It’s just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility.”
That is either Jesuitical or worded very sloppily, depending upon how clever you think Grassley is. The question is not whether a complaint based on second-hand info should be “rejected out of hand” but rather whether second-hand info qualifies as “urgent” requiring special treatment (immediate transmittal to Congress...). Second, it may not be an “agency policy” but for some reason it was printed on the agency’s whistleblower form. So why was that form changed (when, by whom, as a result of what...)?
Thanks for some sanity.
Suppose I walk into my gov’t co-workers office when he’s in the bathroom and see porn on his computer. No one but him can see the screen normally, so I can’t say I’ve actually seen him watching porn on his computer at work. But isn’t this something you’d want a whistleblower to be able to report? They couldn’t claim to have firsthand information that the co-worker was watching porn on his government computer but once a WB complaint was filed, the IT people could put a monitor on his IP address and gather evidence to prove it.
That’s why these laws are being changed. In fact we do want people to report misdeeds even if they are not eyewitnesses to them. A wide funnel that is narrowed down through investigation.
The bigger issues here are: 1) who gave the information to the WB and put them up to filing, 2) who provided legal assistance to them 3) why did the WB check the box that it was firsthand information and then specifically state that it was not.
That the form did not require first-hand information is irrelevant, as is the date it was changed. The IC IG has explained that was done by a newly-created position this year as a part of an overall review and is in keeping with federal law.
The leaker of executive privileged material has been converted into a righteous whistleblower by a corrupt bureaucrat, Atkinson.
Has little to nothing to do with hearsay.
Suppose the receptionist at Grassley's doctor handed out his medical records, disclosing something he did not want to be made public - addict, alcoholic, medicated for schizophrenia. Leaking this is a violation of law. Grassley's position, if he is consistent, is that if that information is made public by an inspector general (it is OF COURSE in the public interest to know this!), the identity of the leaker must be protected.
He'd piss and moan that this is none of the inspector general's business, and he'd be right, but hey, now it's a whistleblower, not a leaker.