SerialBrain9 wrote on Nov 9
th, 2019 at 9:11pm:
Dnarever wrote on Nov 9
th, 2019 at 8:58pm:
Trashy_Pierre wrote on Nov 9
th, 2019 at 8:50pm:
Dnarever wrote on Nov 8
th, 2019 at 10:15pm:
SerialBrain9 wrote on Nov 8
th, 2019 at 7:45am:
are you smacking deranged?
This is why they sneakily changed the whistleblower rules to allow "hearsay" whistleblowers to lodge a complaint.
they need to replug this hole as it has no legal bearing weight.
take it to a court of law and the case will get thrown out immediately.
"I read it in the failing New York Times and lodged a whistleblower complaint" 
do you even realise how insanely stupid you sound?
maybe not - it was welfare day yesterday so im guessing you got tanked up again which would explain your nonsense and erratic behaviour.
are you smacking deranged?
Considering how often you are wrong you should not insist on using an insult in the preface of every post.
Quote:This is why they sneakily changed the whistleblower rules to allow "hearsay" whistleblowers to lodge a complaint.
This is fake news:
First hand knowledge was never a requirement.https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/donald-trump-inspector-general-whist... Link: Hearsay in United States Law Quote:Hearsay is an out-of-court statement being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit introducing hearsay statements during applicable federal court proceedings
Whistleblower complaints are not a part of any federal court proceeding at that point and indeed it could not be effectively used in a federal trial ? However the standard is lower to be used as sufficient evidence to investigate.
It is a fact that in the whistleblower legislation the requirement for first hand knowledge was never there.
Just shut up you blithering lying idiot.
You'd have to be he stupidest person on the forum and I question if you have some sort of mental disability.
It's the only way I could explain your utter 100% incorrect statements on this forum.
No one could lie this much and live with themselves. So I offer you the courtesy of having a mental disability rather than being the forums biggest liar.
Even bigger than Lyin Ross.
I would never call you a liar, I have no idea if it is just that you are stupid enough to believe the incorrect garbage you post.
What I stated here is 100% correct.
Quote:Under the ICWPA, an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the complaint or information to their agency’s inspector general or the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG). Within a 14-day period, the IG must determine "whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be credible, thereafter transfer the information to the head of the agency.
IG must determine "whether the complaint or information appears credible,This is the required benchmark, you may note that there is no requirement that it reached the high bar applied to a federal court case. The reason for that is because it doesn't.
i.e if the evidence is credible it will be passed on for investigation and if not credible it will not be passed on.
The investigation part is where a high evidentiary standard is needed.
Forum
Pages: 
