OK. For the sake of argument I'll stipulate that the form was fraudulent.
What earthly difference did it make given that the WB claimed, and the ICIG verified, direct knowledge?
Oh, for Petes sake. No, dont stipulate a fact for the sake of argument. Ive shown it in too many ways that most people with an ounce of brains can see it as a fact. YOU, on the other hand want to retain your own facts.
The ICIG, which you keep failing to recognize, by his own pattern of activity, was part of the RESISTANCE and is dirty. The ICIG did no such thing as verify direct knowledge. What part of I read the entire set of documents submitted by Eric Ciamarella, a person YOU cannot bring yourself to name, using a phony set of WB initials for Whistleblower, when we all know he was actually no such thing, but rather at best, a weasel, or a spy, a leaker, revealing classified information (had he done any such thing), but instead of producing an entirely created narrative that is, in fact, on the record FALSE TO FACT, as exposed by the actual transcribed, and sworn to be, accurate transcript. I went through it several times, read it with a fine-tooth comb approach looking for the direct knowledge of the allegations made and found NOTHING that was direct knowledge. In fact, everything was second-hand, third-hand, or taken from newspaper accounts that have now, with the release of the DOJs Inspector generals Report shown to be FALSE. Oops. No first hand knowledge except the reports of what Eric Ciamarella says he, himself, did in trying to be his own investigator in calling and finding other so-called withnesses who also heard something second-hand.
Perhaps by direct knowledge you mean when he says Someone told me that such and such happened. I hate to break it to you and ICIG Atkinson, that doesnt count. Nor does, I read in the Washington Post or I saw on CNN count as Direct Knowledge. . . But that was what I found in Eric Ciamarellas affidavit attached to his Form-401 where he checked the box claiming he had Direct Personal Knowledge of the events. . . Yet he was not brave enough to sign his name to this cowardly document, having his lawyers instead attest it was true to the best of THEIR knowledge. BAH! That is not, in fact, an attestment from Eric Ciaramella. We have only second hand attestment through attorneys. Double Bah!
You wanted to know why this matters?
If the ICIG Atkinson had not: