1st-Hand Requirement Deleted from Form Just 2 Days Before Complaint

Why edit a form in order to make an imminent frivolous complaint/fraud on the American public nevertheless lodgeable?

Is US government procedure that malleable that day that anyone can rig the system and nobody would notice or take action?

www.westernjournal.com...

Intel Community Uploaded Altered Whistleblower Form 2 Days Before Complaint Released to Public

If you were to file a whistleblower report with the intelligence community inspector general, up until Sept. 24, the conduct you were blowing the whistle on officially had to be witnessed firsthand. The “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form — the channel by which one reported such things — specifically stated that any kind of second-hand information about alleged wrongdoing wouldn’t do. This appears to have changed at 4:25 p.m. on Sept. 24, when a new form was uploaded to the Director of National Intelligence’s website. On the new form, individuals who “heard about [wrongdoing] from others” can also report it. That date is pretty significant because it was just two days before the biggest whistleblower report in the intelligence community’s history was released to the public.

nothing shady about this at all.......


#doievenneeda/sarc

Some people did something 😃

Something dirty and very wicked 😃

Setup 😃

Diversion 😃

Dire Desperation 😃

wow what an AMAZING coincidence... what an amazing stroke of luck for the democrats, I am sure there was nothing shady about that at all, certainly no coordination between the cia operative and the left/globalist clique.

Why even wait the 2 days...its already obvious why the change was made.

They may as well just forge a House/Senate vote and dub over the results impeaching Trump and be done with it like an OJ trial or whatever. (And pay people off ,or threaten em, to go with the CIASSAD narrative/script)

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

The law stipulates that you know about illegal activity and you are federal employee. Your conclusion is a big stretch. If I hear about some privates fragging an officer I can report it.

a reply to: HanyManny

You don't "know" about anything if you hear it second hand. You assume those who told you are being honest and aren't mistaken. There's a big difference there and it's precisely why hear say isn't allowed in a court of law. Now kangaroo courts thrive on such hear say though... I'll leave it to you guys on just what type of proceedings we hace here.

a reply to: HanyManny

Under the UCMJ heresy testimony is allowed. Not so much under civilian law.

a reply to: DJMSN

Funny enough everything I've ever heard about military courts have always seemed kind of slanted and kangarooie.

Looks like a lot of barracks lawyers who never served are chiming in here.

Take it from me, even a rumor among the troops of a fragging is heavily investigated, and punished if true. Put on some boots sometime if you want to find out what it is like.

originally posted by: HanyManny
Looks like a lot of barracks lawyers who never served are chiming in here.

Take it from me, even a rumor among the troops of a fragging is heavily investigated, and punished if true. Put on some boots sometime if you want to find out what it is like.

Put the shield away Captain America, there are far smarter people than yourself on these boards.

Might serve you well to actually LEARN something from them from time to time.

a reply to: RickyD

In all fairness, there are many other rights that the accused are afforded but not extended to civilians in legal proceedings. The justice system under the UCMJ can be kangarooish since Commanders are the ones who decides whether charges will be adjudicated or not.

If an individual of higher rank is accused, normally its whitewashed and hidden if it's a liked individual. Same crime attributed to an individual of lesser rank is prosecuted to the max. A lot depends on the crime, how the individual was caught and unfortunately, that individuals popularity within the Command.

a reply to: letni

This is so dirty.

How in the purple f### can they get away with it???

I find it funny that so many of the right put "I support the troops" stickers on their cars but when they meet an actual troop they try to diminish them for their knowledge and service.

Shameful.

a reply to: HanyManny

Rumors of murder are also investigated by civilian authorities and very throughly as well, but for Constitutional reasons heresay is still not allowed. Civilian authorities are eager to investigate but those investigations sometimes fall short due to lack of evidence, and in the end like it or not, heresay is not allowed in a civilian court of law

originally posted by: HanyManny
I find it funny that so many of the right put "I support the troops" stickers on their cars but when they meet an actual troop they try to diminish them for their knowledge and service.

Shameful.

G.I. Joe? You've already supported a dissolution of the Bill of Rights in another thread.

How about staying on topic, learning something, and stop being such a douche.

We're talking about corruption within our government that allows the weak ass democrat's room to maneuver their way into impeachment.

That's bad. Regardless of who is in office.

a reply to: letni

This was never submitted by any form.

It was advised in a nine page letter.

and it corroborates the summary we were gifted with.

Deny
Distract
Divert
Attack

this one is divert. It sounds so nefarious.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

I agree.

a reply to: xuenchen

Now you're getting it.