[semimojo]

Reporters like Sean Davis and the Republicans congressmen insist that ONLY first hand knowledge was a requirement to be a whistleblower.

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.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: First hand knowledge isn’t required for a whistleblower report under the law.

So, you are saying that the back dating is simply a form adjustment to fit the pre-existing US Code?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: 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.

HERE is the PDF file of Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

Let me copy and paste the relevant portion of this document ( I underline and bold the relevant portion ):

In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing. (Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the IC IG.)

So, how does the above statement square with your statement that First hand information isn't required for a whistleblower report under the law?

[SeekAndFind]

Edit to add: Unless the Whistleblower DID clain to have first hand information.

But *IF* the Whistleblower did claim to have first hand information, how does his claim square with the transcript of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky?

Where is the quid-pro-quo in the exchange? Unless of course, there are other exchanges that the Whistleblower was privy to that we do not yet know of...

If so, where’s the evidence suck other exchanges? Are they forthcoming?