OUCH: Sean Davis schools Mark Zaid (a whistleblower attorney) for making this ridiculous claim about 'first-hand knowledge'

Sam J. | 2:49 PM on September 30, 2019

Sean Davis taking one of the whistleblower’s attorneys to SCHOOL about whether or not his client was required to have first-hand knowledge of the information he or she was blowing the whistle on may well be our favorite thing on Twitter today.

Although that corgi race is pretty freakin’ cute …

There has never been any requirement that #whistleblowers were required to possess first-hand knowledge to file complaint. No law anywhere states that. https://t.co/fHvIjJIy4m

— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) September 30, 2019

Except the law says otherwise.

The law gives the IC IG near-total authority to evaulate complaints, and the IC IG explicitly stated on its whistleblower form that "The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing." https://t.co/cLsehT17po pic.twitter.com/v5Y71uq7m0

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 30, 2019

So Mark’s an attorney?

Alrighty.

He fired back …

You're totally incorrect. But you can seek clarification from the Trump/GOP appointed IC IG whose office also disagrees with you.

— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) September 30, 2019

But isn’t he talking about the office making the change? Why would Sean check with the office that magically changed the form? Are we missing something here?

And wow, since Mark said Sean is TOTALLY incorrect we guess that means he’s wrong.

Heh.

Totally.

Professional, right?

I don't know how much clearer the IC IG could have been in its previous whistleblower guidance than saying, in all caps, "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED."

Anyone who claims the IC IG never required first-hand evidence is being deliberately dishonest. https://t.co/ZvCpCMBx8h pic.twitter.com/smUieVwfZ1

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 30, 2019