thanks. I saw that. The instructions are in the form. The instructions are not in the new form.
Here's a copy of the old Rev. 24May2018 form:
https://www.scribd.com/document/427771856/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18
The 24May2018 directions say "First hand information required." the form says (just like the new form says, knowledge other than first hand):
Near as I can figure, the instructions required first hand information in order to find an urgent concern “credible".
It does not preclude 2nd hand info only that it can't used to make an urgent concern credible nor can it be used for an ICWPA complaint.(No whistleblower protections)
I guess I didn't stop chasin.
The old form was uploaded to scribe by k paoulsen -> daily beast reporter.
https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1177734528833445888
I have no idea from where he got it.
If it's accurate,(from the Larry O'Donnell school of reporting) then....What ? I don't know. Are the changes innocent ? on the surface it seems that way.
Beebe makes a strong case for shennanigans.
The couple of differences are, (and #1 is huge as Beebe points out) the "new" form does not contain the:
1."Background Information on ICWPA Process"(instructions & explanations)
2. form ID like the old one (Form 401)
Beebe does a comparison of 2 Whistle Blower Congressional Research documents issued 9 months apart - 12/12/2018 & 09/23/2019.
Both documents issued by Michael E. DeVine - Analyst in Intelligence and National Security.(This guys creds appear rock solid)
My question would be...Who commissioned or asked for these research documents and why ? I suppose I could ask him directly(I will) but I'm guessing it's going to take an FOIA request.
just shoot me.
