Sean Davis: ‘Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge’

Update:


1.9.20:

Some associations here in the impeachment hoax:  ICIG was Carlin's attorney, and Carlin was Mueller's Chief of Staff.  Schiff is holding back testimony from ICIG Atkinson from his Star Chamber.  Nunes is checking out the ICIG.  Bongino outlines the doings of the Deep State.

10.24.19:

"A desperate time-buying ploy."  You mean something like a Hail Mary Pass? ( see below in previous updates (9.27.19) )  I like having my observations play out as mostly true.  It smells like napalm, or was it victory?  

ROGER KIMBALL: The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is a doomed and desperate time-buying ploy.

R… https://t.co/O4VC6Z2XzH

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 24, 2019

9.29.19:


If there is any confusion remaining on this subject, a little thought may dispel it.   It seems that from the DOJ opinion that the matter isn't one of  "urgent concern".

Those who changed the protocols wanted to get this out there as quickly as possible.  So they changed the protocols so as to treat it as an "urgent concern".  Without this "urgent concern" moniker, the whole thing might have eventually been shrugged off as a minor infraction at best.

The matter is a minor matter, not an "urgent concern".  That was the DOJ ruling.

Basically, it boils down to the fact that the Democrats want to impeach over what amounts to a small fine at best.  Obama got one of those.  You don't impeach over this Mickey Mouse stuff.  It's a "parking ticket", not a high crime or misdemeanor.


9.28.19:

4:25 pm:

It seems like the dispute was already resolved by the DOJ opinion.   Kudos to CTH for this one.  (correction) I may have been hasty on this one ( 4:38 pm)  Comes from not reading it, I suppose.  It cites the same law that was cited below ( or appears to).  I may have jumped to conclusions.  I am reading it now. (4:54)  Doesn't answer it directly, but it does appear that the DOJ would accept referrals based upon hearsay.  However, the protocol question as to what is acceptable, does appear to have been changed.  Very recently changed. 

1:50 pm:

There appears to be some dispute about what the law actually requires, and whether or not the forms were revised.

It appears that the forms were indeed revised, but what the law is, I couldn't say.

If the Dems supporters are right, then there are unlimited opportunities for leaks.  No wonder that there are some many of them, then.

They're not supposed to be leaking this info.   Looks to me like the Dems are trying to prevent a legitimate inquiry into a matter that looks at the very least to be highly questionable. 

Update a little later:

The first hand knowledge requirement was there.  It was revised.  I don't see anybody denying that.  The question is if you accept the premise that the law doesn't require it, and since I am not qualified to say one way or another, my question is why was the first hand knowledge requirement there in the first place?

The fact is it was there and now it isn't.  It looks suspicious.

9.27.19:

Comment:

This meshes with everything else that I've seen lately.  It is a "Hail Mary" pass to stop Trump.  If that doesn't work, then it is for other reasons.

Trump's polls were at the highest just recently.  The week's news knocked several points off his approval rating.

You people need to keep your eyes on the ball here.  This looks like a significant development.

The Deep State is up to no damned good.  Good job by Sean Davis.

‘Great reporting by Sean Davis: ‘Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge’ https://t.co/XfQFf8hpzD via @twitchyteam

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) September 28, 2019