They are exposing whistleblower. Drudge report

[Anonymous]

Your concerns do not qualify as firsthand evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

Anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

Anyone?

Because the DoD OIG doesn't require firsthand knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

Anyone?

Because the DoD OIG doesn't require firsthand knowledge.

Please link your source. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your concerns do not qualify as firsthand evidence.

Concerns do not need to be firsthand evidence to be brought to the proper authority.

That is not a requirement in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

Anyone?

Because the DoD OIG doesn't require firsthand knowledge.

Please link your source. Thanks!

Google it. Or look earlier in this thread. It has been discussed ad nauseum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

Anyone?

A whistleblower becomes a whistleblower by reporting concerns to the correct authority.

There is no requirement to be a first hand witness to bad behavior.

However, by reporting the concerns, in this case, the investigation was started, and eye witness accounts of Trump's misuse of office have been discovered.

Thank goodness for the whistleblower who raised the concerns that got the investigation started.

Why do you think so many people, like for example, Sonderland, didn't step forward on their own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

Anyone?

Because the DoD OIG doesn't require firsthand knowledge.

Please link your source. Thanks!

Happily. As soon as you like to your source definition of "firsthand".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

Anyone?

Because the DoD OIG doesn't require firsthand knowledge.

Please link your source. Thanks!

Google it. Or look earlier in this thread. It has been discussed ad nauseum.

It's right here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ272/html/PLAW-105publ272.htm

now, PP, YOU post where you see that a whistleblower in the CIA is required to have first hand knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

Anyone?

Because the DoD OIG doesn't require firsthand knowledge.

Please link your source. Thanks!

Google it. Or look earlier in this thread. It has been discussed ad nauseum.

It's right here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ272/html/PLAW-105publ272.htm

now, PP, YOU post where you see that a whistleblower in the CIA is required to have first hand knowledge.

Also this (the OIG specifically addressing the rumor that firsthand knowledge is required for whistleblower reports).
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven’t heard exactly how he can be a whistleblower when he had no firsthand evidence of anything.

Anyone?

Because the DoD OIG doesn't require firsthand knowledge.

Please link your source. Thanks!

Google it. Or look earlier in this thread. It has been discussed ad nauseum.

It's right here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ272/html/PLAW-105publ272.htm

now, PP, YOU post where you see that a whistleblower in the CIA is required to have first hand knowledge.

Also this (the OIG specifically addressing the rumor that firsthand knowledge is required for whistleblower reports).
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

Well, that is very definitive! Thanks for posting.

[Anonymous]

Fishy how those employees with DIRECT knowledge of perceived wrongdoing failed to blow their whistle. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fishy how those employees with DIRECT knowledge of perceived wrongdoing failed to blow their whistle. Why?

Isn't is fishy that they are also failing to comply with House subpoenas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fishy how those employees with DIRECT knowledge of perceived wrongdoing failed to blow their whistle. Why?

You know exactly why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fishy how those employees with DIRECT knowledge of perceived wrongdoing failed to blow their whistle. Why?

Because they are scared of angering Dear Leader. Are you this stupid all the time?