RE: Thus, the IC IG decided post-submission, that firsthand knowledge was not required in the statute
See the post #19 above.
It is poster, semimojo’s contention that firsthand knowledge PRE-SUBMISSION was never required, and second hand knowledge has always been acceptable.
I want to get to the bottom of this.
Which is it?
Was first hand knowledge a requirement before? Or was it only added later as not a necessary requirement?
The IG, Michael Atkinson said second hand knowledge had always been acceptable to be considered a Whistleblower.
Reporters like Sean Davis and the Republicans congressmen insist that ONLY first hand knowledge was a requirement to be a whistleblower.
Who is right?
if it was always allowed why make the sneaky change? check bank accounts payoffs...
First hand knowledge was a requirement on the form. The current IC IG decided that it was improperly included on the form because the underlying statute didn't require first hand knowledge.
The IG, Michael Atkinson said second hand knowledge had always been acceptable to be considered a Whistleblower.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
First-hand knowledge is required for an “urgent concern”, which is a complaint that can be forwarded directly to congress. Second-hand knowledge can be used within the ICIG’s own system, but is not eligible for submission to congress until confirmed, I think.
I am curious as to why the ICIG decided that POTUS is within his jurisdiction, which is an explicit requirement from the statute.
Look at the ICIG's statement and the US Code he references in it. First hand knowledge isn't required for a whistleblower report under the law.