Like many others, The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland has more questions NOW than she did before the whistleblower’s statement was released. Especially after watching the mental-gymnastics the media and the whistleblower’s attorney tried to pull concerning the magically changed form.
You know, how it was suddenly ok to report gossip?
Margot’s thread doesn’t answer a whole lot of questions but boy howdy, she asks some excellent ones:
THREAD: I'm still noodling on this response. But here are my initial thoughts. I don't want to know if the IG EVER required 1st hand knowledge, I want to know if anyone ever submitted a form where they didn't mark first hand knowledge. 1/ https://t.co/NRDGga0Kdz
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
2/ because it was marked VERY clearly FIRST HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED. Who is going to fill out a form and check they didn't have first hand info if the form says it's required! AND why stress that?
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
Because it’s all been a political set-up.
*adjusts tinfoil*
3/ And ICIG Training for EMPLOYEES from 2016 gives this nice little summary of what to include. pic.twitter.com/ggnSKIPiuE
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
What.
You.
Witnessed.
Sounds like it’s calling for first-hand knowledge to us.
4/ Also, the ICIG's entire discussion that the statute doesn't require first hand knowledge is true but irrelevant. Question is how did ICIG interpret the statute. Key language is key: "Speculation" does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet STATUTORY requirements of ICWPA. pic.twitter.com/mU7xAafkuQ
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
Orange man bad?
No?
Fine, we tried.
5/ Given this previously language "FIRST HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED," the training sessions, it seems clear SOMEONE interpreted language that way? Or was that only for Obama? So, I want these questions answered:
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
Someone interpreted the language that way.
Who?
6/ along with documentation. How did that FIRST HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED direction get in there? Was that every the interpretation? Have ANY forms been accepted with first hand information NOT checked?
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
7/ Did your policy change from predecessor? What about under Obama? Who was involved and why? And finally, that ICIG maintains it was an "urgent matter" is telling–either incompetent or complicit!
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
8/ also of interest is this highlighted language which deals with the retaliation and not filing, but might IG office previously used this as basis to call for first hand information? pic.twitter.com/uPRNUwcsyi
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
9/ Additionally, I'd note I thought there was a typo when the IG said they changed the form in response to press inquiries, because I thought the form was changed in September-but on double checking it was uploaded in September but shows a revision in August.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
10/ So was it revised in August and uploaded in September? Was it revised based on press reports? Didn't the Whistleblower info just go public? How would form be revised in August in relation to press reports then?
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
Timing seems interesting indeed.
11/ I actually have more questions now than before the release of the statement.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2019
Join the club.
Related: