Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind

2 posted on 10/01/2019 1:35:47 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (look at Michigan, it will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: SeekAndFind
Say WHAT?

Fox News said this morning that no forms were changed, and that the prior narrative that the Deep State intel community did something wrong was HOGWASH.

3 posted on 10/01/2019 1:39:11 PM PDT by CivilWarBrewing (Get off my back for my usage of CAPS, especially you snowflake males! MAN UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Brennan should have already been before firing squad as a traitor to the Republic. But he’s untouchable as a deep satte member, a demon rat, a moose slime, and the main enabler of the treacherous Barry Soetoro. Brennan is determined to bring down the Republic, one way or another, and as a moose slime lying is officially permitted.


5 posted on 10/01/2019 1:42:28 PM PDT by MHGinTN (A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Good Lord!
the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

The ICIG’s claim that it would have been incorrect to perceive a requirement for firsthand information is bizarre considering the previous version of the form clearly stated in unambiguous language that firsthand evidence was required in order for “urgent concern” whistleblower complaints to be deemed credible. It said, in bold, underlined, all-caps text, FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED”

The ICIG needs to be brought up on charges at a minimum.
15 posted on 10/01/2019 1:54:16 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Help me here as Im confused. So the whistleblower signed the complaint that he received the information first hand but then the ICIG changed the rules because he knew the whistleblower got his info second hand and he wanted to provide cover for him/her?


26 posted on 10/01/2019 2:42:08 PM PDT by tirednvirginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson