RE: Finally, the WB did claim to have direct knowledge and the IG agreed.
So, you’re telling us that the WB had DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of the so called quid pro quo and it was not from second hand sources?
How does this direct knowledge square with the transcripts released ?
Also, see here:
(EXCERPT)
Devin Nunes just sent a letter to the Intel Community Inspector General demanding answers about how secondhand information was used to kick up this whole ordeal.
FROM HIS INTERVIEW WITH LAUEA INGRAHAM:
REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): Well, I’m glad that we finally have a response from the IG. Remember, this leaked out last Friday. The DNI refused to respond to it. So finally, because of the pressure we’ve put on this morning, we’re getting an answer from the Inspector General.
But I would say this, Laura. I haven’t seen any evidence of that. So if he has firsthand knowledge, he or she has firsthand knowledge, what is that - where is that evidence? Just because the IG said so, they haven’t provided us that evidence.
And furthermore, he didn’t answer anything in that three-page press release, the questions that we asked in our letter today. So he has until Thursday to provide us the facts, the evidence, the emails. Why did they - because they admit that they changed this regulation. OK? This guideline, they changed it because of this whistleblower. He admits it in his own press release. So the mainstream media is trying to cover this up.
BACK TO YOU. So, you’re saying that Devin Nunes is blowing smoke and IG, Michael Atkinson was right all along? WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE ABOUT REQUIRING FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE TO BE CONSIDERED A WHISTLE BLOWER WHEN ( as you claim ) THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT?
Are these Republican legislators ignorant about the rules?
RB - rumorblower
No, I'm telling you that the IG claims to have determined that the WB had direct knowledge of some of the acts.
I don't know beyond that because that's all the ICIG said in his statement.
So, you’re saying that Devin Nunes is blowing smoke and IG, Michael Atkinson was right all along?
Yeah, pretty much.
Again, if you look at what Nunes says he doesn't claim the form was changed for the whistleblower (although that's what he wants you to believe), he's saying it was changed because of the WB. I don't think Atkinson would even agree with that but it doesn't matter because the WB didn't use the new form and wasn't subject to new rules.