Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
The ICIG and the WB's lawyer both know what the law actually says. And both followed what the law actually says.Do you see the conflict with the updated form & thus the questions ?
Was the Background Information presented to the WB also stupid & irrelevant ?ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:19 pmThe ICIG and the WB's lawyer both know what the law actually says. And both followed what the law actually says.Do you see the conflict with the updated form & thus the questions ?
So what some stupid form does/does not say is irrelevant.
We are a nation of laws after all Salty. Not a nation of pdf forms.
Sheesh!
What are you referencing when you say "Background Information"?old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:22 pmWas the Background Information presented to the WB also stupid & irrelevant ?ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:19 pmThe ICIG and the WB's lawyer both know what the law actually says. And both followed what the law actually says.Do you see the conflict with the updated form & thus the questions ?
So what some stupid form does/does not say is irrelevant.
We are a nation of laws after all Salty. Not a nation of pdf forms.
Sheesh!
How many previous WB complaints (submitted without expert counsel) were similarly bungled or stifled before they got to the IG ?
I think that is a fair question and a relevant question, but that by this point it is pretty much only a question for historians to answer down the road.
The portion I highlighted in red in the text you graciously posted, at my request.foreverlax wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:28 pmWhat are you referencing when you say "Background Information"?old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:22 pmWas the Background Information presented to the WB also stupid & irrelevant ?ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:19 pmThe ICIG and the WB's lawyer both know what the law actually says. And both followed what the law actually says.Do you see the conflict with the updated form & thus the questions ?
So what some stupid form does/does not say is irrelevant.
We are a nation of laws after all Salty. Not a nation of pdf forms.
Sheesh!
How many previous WB complaints (submitted without expert counsel) were similarly bungled or stifled before they got to the IG ?
I hear you, but it seems very strange to me that someone, through incompetence, would add a first hand knowledge requirement to a form when the applicable statute has no such requirement. That is obviously a very significant, and very limiting, requirement. Especially so in the intelligence community where someone at Langley is unlikely to have spoken directly to a field source.ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:15 pmPossible. But I always start with Hanlon's Razor -- incompetence more likely than nefariousness.seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:59 pm NJBill writes: "Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: maybe the Trump administration changed the forms in or before May 2018 to add the first hand knowledge requirement in order to try to minimize the number of whistleblower complaints."
Exactly; as plausible or more plausible than the silliness being chucked around by Randy and the Talking Points.
As I wrote, I don't know.
Odd how the talking heads were all “parroting no first hand knowledge” at the same time.njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:51 pmI hear you, but it seems very strange to me that someone, through incompetence, would add a first hand knowledge requirement to a form when the applicable statute has no such requirement. That is obviously a very significant, and very limiting, requirement. Especially so in the intelligence community where someone at Langley is unlikely to have spoken directly to a field source.ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:15 pmPossible. But I always start with Hanlon's Razor -- incompetence more likely than nefariousness.seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:59 pm NJBill writes: "Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: maybe the Trump administration changed the forms in or before May 2018 to add the first hand knowledge requirement in order to try to minimize the number of whistleblower complaints."
Exactly; as plausible or more plausible than the silliness being chucked around by Randy and the Talking Points.
Again, I'd be interested in seeing all prior versions of the form and the effective dates on which each was put into effect. Especially the form that initially added the first hand knowledge requirement.
If that requirement has been in the form from the beginning, maybe nothing nefarious. If it was added in May 2018 by the Trump administration, I'm very suspicious.
You're deliberately missing the point here, again and again and again. Do you think what the President did was wrong? Yes or No.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:17 pmWas the Background Information presented to the WB by the IG also wrong & dumb ?ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:15 pmPossible. But I always start with Hanlon's Razor -- incompetence more likely than nefariousness.seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:59 pm NJBill writes: "Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: maybe the Trump administration changed the forms in or before May 2018 to add the first hand knowledge requirement in order to try to minimize the number of whistleblower complaints."
Exactly; as plausible or more plausible than the silliness being chucked around by Randy and the Talking Points.
Key point. The old form was wrong wrong wrong wrong on what the actual law and requirements are. A stupid PDF form can't over-ride the law.
So:
1. Thankfully, the WB used the old bad form and was not put off by its false and misleading verbiage.
2. The WB said he had first hand knowledge.
3. Thankfully, the ICIG actually knows what the law is. Thankfully, the ICIG follows what the law actually is.
5. Thankfully, the WB's lawyer also knows what the law is and wasn't put off by a dumb form.
How long were previous WB complaints administered IAW this dumb & wrong guidance ?
I think you missed Old Salt's post from a day ago, seacoaster.seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:15 pm You're deliberately missing the point here, again and again and again. Do you think what the President did was wrong? Yes or No.
I did miss that. Thanks. I am almost relieved.a fan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:24 pmI think you missed Old Salt's post from a day ago, seacoaster.seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:15 pm You're deliberately missing the point here, again and again and again. Do you think what the President did was wrong? Yes or No.
Asked & answered. I'm examining in the actions of the WB & the leakers whose information he acted upon, & whether or not the reporting process was tampered with.seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:15 pmYou're deliberately missing the point here, again and again and again. Do you think what the President did was wrong? Yes or No.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:17 pmWas the Background Information presented to the WB by the IG also wrong & dumb ?ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:15 pmPossible. But I always start with Hanlon's Razor -- incompetence more likely than nefariousness.seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:59 pm NJBill writes: "Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: maybe the Trump administration changed the forms in or before May 2018 to add the first hand knowledge requirement in order to try to minimize the number of whistleblower complaints."
Exactly; as plausible or more plausible than the silliness being chucked around by Randy and the Talking Points.
Key point. The old form was wrong wrong wrong wrong on what the actual law and requirements are. A stupid PDF form can't over-ride the law.
So:
1. Thankfully, the WB used the old bad form and was not put off by its false and misleading verbiage.
2. The WB said he had first hand knowledge.
3. Thankfully, the ICIG actually knows what the law is. Thankfully, the ICIG follows what the law actually is.
5. Thankfully, the WB's lawyer also knows what the law is and wasn't put off by a dumb form.
How long were previous WB complaints administered IAW this dumb & wrong guidance ?
If you insist (with darned little basis) to keep going down this path, then I think you also have to go down the path of NJ Bill's question:They were caused by inconsistent guidance provided by the IG's office & call into question whether this WB's complaint was handled differently than previous ones.
Let's find out. The fact remains, if previous WB complaints were processed IAW the Background Information provided & the form requiring first hand knowledge, rather than the form allowing hearsay, then the rules were changed for this WB.ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:00 pmIf you insist (with darned little basis) to keep going down this path, then I think you also have to go down the path of NJ Bill's question:They were caused by inconsistent guidance provided by the IG's office & call into question whether this WB's complaint was handled differently than previous ones.
Did the Trumpsters revise the reporting form in 2018 to (i) mis-state the law and (ii) try to stifle potential whistleblower complaints.
To me, that seems like a much more plausible story line than the discredited Federalist hack conspiracy theory.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:07 amcradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:07 amrunrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:55 amMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:50 amrunrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:44 amWhat is honorable about attacking a High School girls lack of attractiveness? At age 62? He yucked it up and helped Tailhook offenders. dismissed Jim Webbs new GI bill. so much for the enlisted guysMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:25 am
RRR/ABV, I try not to call my fellow posters names, but I will describe more generally 'wimps' those who go after McCain as if he was actually a dishonorable person, in common cause with the hard right/Trumpists who hate McCain because he stood up to Trump. Gets one's attention, doesn't it?
So many regrets...imperfections. So many.......
.you're NOT a veteran, so you wouldn't understand.