The recent UFO whistleblower, I know the guy and what I know of him, he ain’t credible. But I can’t tell if what he is alleging is credible or not. There are some obvious giveaways in his statement but this made me take pause because I just don’t know if this comment is correct from a lawyer’s point of view.
from the article:
Beyond this stunning revelation, the whistleblower — a former high-level intelligence official — is represented by a lawyer who served previously as the intelligence community’s first inspector general, a Senate-confirmed position. The managing partner of the law firm representing the whistleblower reportedly co-signed the complaint submitted to the current Intelligence Community inspector general. As noted in a legal analysis, no lawyer, let alone two high-caliber attorneys, would sign such an extraordinary document without “very credible source material.”
Is it true that lawyers won’t co-sign unless they have “very credible source material?” Or is that casual bullshit by the author?
thehill.com
from the article:
Beyond this stunning revelation, the whistleblower — a former high-level intelligence official — is represented by a lawyer who served previously as the intelligence community’s first inspector general, a Senate-confirmed position. The managing partner of the law firm representing the whistleblower reportedly co-signed the complaint submitted to the current Intelligence Community inspector general. As noted in a legal analysis, no lawyer, let alone two high-caliber attorneys, would sign such an extraordinary document without “very credible source material.”
Is it true that lawyers won’t co-sign unless they have “very credible source material?” Or is that casual bullshit by the author?
Stunning UFO crash retrieval allegations deemed ‘credible,’ ‘urgent’
A key U.S. government entity found allegations, backed by legal representation that is beyond reproach, of a cover-up with potentially profound implications to be “credible.”
thehill.com
