[semimojo]

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.

I don't know what the IG found, only what he says. It's an official statement from a Trump appointee but he could be lying.

My issue has always been with Davis and the politicians who play us for fools. This whole changed form narrative has been a distraction.

No one disputes that the WB used the old form.

[MortMan]

Thank you for discussing the substance of my post and not disputing it based on some esoteric concern.

I do not recall any evidence I have seen that the ICIG was correct in finding first hand knowledge. The statute requires such for an “urgent concern” where the complaint goes to congress. Further, POTUS is not covered under the ICIG mandate, meaning that the complaint should have been rejected out of hand.

I find no way to reconcile these facts (as established by the ICIG’s own reporting) with the ICIG’s mission and mandate.

The complaint, and any further such complaints, are fruit of the poisoned tree, as far as I can see.