Who’s going to read all that crap?
ML/NJ
You should, or you won’t know what you’re talking about when you post anything about the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community. I decided I’d better read the law that governs his actions and now I know he’s full of crap. His determination that the so-called "whistleblower" had credibility is blown out of the water by the words of this statute, as are the claims he has jurisdiction to send it on to the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees. . . because it establishes exactly who his mandate covers and what his jurisdiction covers and the timelines for reporting to Congress. . . and 1) the President is clearly not among those under the IG has either the authority or jurisdiction to report, 2) it exposes that games are being played in the IC IG’s office with the statutory time frames the law requires, and 3) either the IC IG doesn’t know the limits of his jurisdictional mandate, or he does and is deliberately and criminally abusing his office and power in furtherance of an illegal coup attempt.
Given the other evidence popping up out of the IC IG’s office in August and September with secretly changed rules of engagement and forms that don’t even meet government standards that seem obviously tailored to permit this one "whistleblower" complaint, a complaint which would have under prior standards been routinely trash-canned for not meeting previous quality-of-evidence standards due to it being based purely on rumor and second- and third-hand un-corroborated information, to be not only accepted, but then found "credible," using only that un-corroborated second-hand evidence which would have caused it previously to be rejected out-of-hand, is far too convenient. I just don’t believe in coincidences.
If WE don’t read these things, which they are counting on, they win!