[semimojo]

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 think that's right and I know the IG determined that the WB had direct knowledge of some of the claimed acts.

It's all in the ICIG's statement I linked to up thread. I'm mobile now and can't cut and paste from a PDF or I'd post the text.

[SeekAndFind]

If this was simply a clerical error, then all the IC IG should say is this — “It was an oversight in the form, what I did was not a malicious attempt at backdating it, but to correct/adjust the form’s mistake”.

[MortMan]

I think that's right and I know the IG determined that the WB had direct knowledge of some of the claimed acts.

From the complaint released, which I believe was the form released to congress, there were NO first-hand items. The fact that the ICIG claims to have found first hand knowledge is unsupported by the evidence on record, which is the major issue I have had with your acceptance of the assertion at face value, FRiend.

If only the defendant in an accusation is required to present actual evidence, there is no justice, and there must be no acceptance.