-2

As most know an Inspector General (IG) must deem a complaint credible, and the Intelligence Community IG deemed the Whistleblower complaint in affair Ukraine credible. But it appears the IG didn't even review the phone call transcript. Are there Departmental procedures for evaluating credibility, and if so what are they?

  • 2
    "Are the Departmental procedures for evaluating credibility, and if so what are they?", is that a question? Or did youmean to say "Are there...." – BobE Nov 8 at 23:52
  • 11
    This question seems to be phrased rather hastily based on the recent whistle blower. I think the general question is interesting, but it would be better if it's phrased around the question, not around recent events. Please proofread your question before posting and make sure the title and body clearly present the question. Now it seems just as much a promotion of the Federalist as a attempt at learning about departmental policy. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Nov 9 at 0:07
  • 1
    Contast "Did the ICIG determine the complaint to be credible?" with "Why did the ICIG determine the complaint credible". The first q. asks for a fact. Unless and until the ICIG publishes or announces the reasons for his finding of credible, the "Why" question cannot be answered without speculation. However, on review of your question I don't see the word "why" - so there seems to be no reason for your "but not why" comment. – BobE Nov 9 at 6:12
  • @BobE: I vaguely recall that Maguire said that the ICIG corroborated the complaint with other testimony before coming to that conclusion, i.e. it seems he "asked around". – Fizz Nov 9 at 7:47
  • 2
    Why has this been closed? How is "Are there Departmental procedures for evaluating credibility, and if so what are they?" pushing an agenda if this hubbub is such a pressing issue? – apgov Nov 11 at 23:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .