[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.

[semimojo]

I do not recall any evidence I have seen that the ICIG was correct in finding first hand knowledge.

I don't either and have no interest in defending him.

We need to know much more.