https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf Here is the IG's statement from yesterday with regards to how the complaint was filed and the legality of it. Then if all of this is just a hoax, why did Trump's own hand-picked Inspector General find that the complaint was both credible and of urgent concern? Why would someone who is a member of Trump's administration allow a complaint such as this to move forward if there were not supporting facts? You do understand that the IG had to conduct a preliminary review of the matter to ensure that it wasn't simply a political hack job before referring it to the Congress, right? You also know that when the IG referred the matter to the DOJ for review, the DOJ tried to bury the report altogether, right? Why would they do that? Especially if the conversation was "perfect" and was of no concern to them?
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf The IG's release yesterday addressing this very thing.
You miss the mark again. The whistleblower had to update the form used. He originally used the old form and had to use the new one and there were some "inconsistencies". “The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,” the previous form stated under the bolded heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." The old form went into effect in May 2018. After media reports highlighted the change in the form, though, the intelligence community watchdog said the whistleblower had indeed filled out the older version of the form, which retained the requirement that whistleblowers have firsthand information. The inspector general, however, indicated the form was updated in response to media inquiries. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/intelligence-watchdog-whistleblower-complaint
so you didn't read the IG's explanation for all of this I am assuming, which I did post for you to look at. But ultimately, this changes nothing at all. Nothing. Why do you think that this changes anything? Regardless of the form he or she used, the allegations were reviewed by the IG and determined to be credible.
I've already read it and because I read it, I know you missed the mark on my statement. In no way was I claiming anything different that what that letter states. As I said, you missed the mark on my statement.
i thought you believed all his conversations were subject to oversight and should not be encrypted in whatever
The allegation would be credible and of urgent concern, but actually proving the INTENT as aligning with a desire for election purposes as opposed to conversation about current events involving both the US and Ukraine?.. .... There is no way to prove that. As has been repeated numerous times, Trump talking to Zelensky about the Mueller Report and Bidens son as it relates to current events and news reports IS NOT A CRIME. Asking Zelensky to look into the allegations is not a crime, given the topic involves his government. There was no quid pro quo, and there was no “pressure” ... even though all ur buddies in the lame brain media keep repeating it as if there were. Seriously dude .... you act as if you are up there in Washington reviewing all the evidence .... as if you were the one in the room who told the CIA guy about it. You don’t know anything except what you choose to know. And since u hate Trump, ur hoping it’s this is the one. And when this doesn’t do the trick, you’ll jump on the next freak show.
