2nd hand may make sense for intelligence, but does it make sense for an "urgent concern" whistleblower complaint. Also a point re 2nd hand: there's a difference between 2nd hand from named person and from anonymous officials.
The ICIG's reply has to be parsed carefully. It says that the IG needs first hand knowledge, not that the whistleblower complaint does. After receiving the complaint, the IG can talk to the whistleblower and others to get that knowledge. Which maybe he did.
-
-
But did he? So far, we don’t see any evidence of that. Only the word of someone who has no direct knowledge. The DOJ OLC has specifically said that the complaint does not meet the definition of “urgent”; therefore, it’s logical to conclude IG did not talk to anyone else.
-
Not only that but the ICIG's new story is that "whistleblower" DID have firsthand knowledge. If he had changed his story to say "WB" didn't have firsthand but someone else did, fine. But he changed his story to say "WB" has firsthand info of the alleged misconduct so where is it?pic.twitter.com/HXuIt1TYbG
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.