[semimojo]

That statement, which BTW comes shortly after your pull quote, directly contradicts your earlier assertion that the whistleblower "had direct knowledge".

My assertion was that the whistleblower stated on the form that he had direct knowledge, and he did so state.

You’re not arguing in good faith.

But then again, not many are in this stupid sideshow.

[philman_36]

My assertion was that the whistleblower stated on the form that he had direct knowledge, and he did so state.
You did say that in the first part of your comment....

The whistleblower stated on the form that he did have direct knowledge of some of the alleged acts and the IG agreed.
And then you said this...
He had direct knowledge. It doesn’t matter what the form says.
That isn't an assertion, that's a declaration, and an unfounded one at that.

You’re not arguing in good faith.
And you say that of me?

Search for this..."direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct". Think about that.
Not "direct knowledge of certain conduct"...
"direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct".