Author Topic: The "Whistleblower"  (Read 14071 times)

Princess L

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13095
  • I stop for turtles
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #50 on: November 09, 2019, 01:13:03 PM »
The Washington Examiner
Daniel Chaitin  & Jerry Dunleavy -  November 07, 2019 12:53 PM


Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid, lawyers for the whistleblower, refuse to confirm the identity of their client even as such high-profile figures as Donald Trump Jr. have named Ciaramella as the whistleblower.

"Identifying any suspected name for the whistleblower will place their family at risk of serious harm. We will not confirm or deny any name that is published or promoted by supporters of the president. Disclosure of any name undermines the integrity of the whistleblower system and will deter any future whistleblowers," they said in a statement Wednesday. "We will note, however, that publication or promotion of a name shows the desperation to deflect from the substance of the whistleblower complaint. It will not relieve the president of the need to address the substantive allegation, all of which have been substantially proven to be true."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-was-biden-guest-at-state-department-banquet

FFS  ::) >:( ::)
He's not a 'whistle blower'.  He's nothing more than a leaker with 3rd hand gossip.  Adam Schiff released his name last week in a transcript - BEFORE Trump Jr. RE-tweeted.

Get your head out of your a$$.  Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is.

:

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40949
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2019, 01:31:46 PM »
FFS  ::) >:( ::)
He's not a 'whistle blower'.  He's nothing more than a leaker with 3rd hand gossip.  Adam Schiff released his name last week in a transcript - BEFORE Trump Jr. RE-tweeted.

Get your head out of your a$$.  Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is.



FFS  ::) >:( ::)

I did not call him a whistleblower, the article I posted from the Washington Examiner did. Oh, and then there is everyone else, including Lars Larson who spilled the beans during a FOX interview when he referred to this person as the whistleblower. Trump has also called this person as a whistleblower several times including at the beginning of this video.




https://katu.com/news/local/lars-larson-names-impeachment-whistleblower-on-fox-news



My head is not up my ass, but I think yours might be up your bumm.

Princess L

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13095
  • I stop for turtles
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2019, 01:51:56 PM »
FFS I did not call him a whistleblower, the article I posted from the Washington Examiner did. Oh, and then there is everyone else including Lars Larson who spilled the beans during a FOX interview who is referring to this person as the whistle blower. Trump has also referred to this person as a whistleblower several times including at the beginning of this video.



My head is not up my ass, but I think yours might be.

https://katu.com/news/local/lars-larson-names-impeachment-whistleblower-on-fox-news

Spilled what beans?  ::)  Schiff was the one who originally "outed" him.   ::) So what.   ::) He's not a "whistle blower" with firsthand knowledge. 
Larson said "so-called whistle blower"


:

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40949
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2019, 02:05:34 PM »
Spilled what beans?  ::)  Schiff was the one who originally "outed" him.   ::) So what.   ::) He's not a "whistle blower" with firsthand knowledge. 
Larson said "so-called whistle blower"




First you rant that he's not a whistleblower and now you are qualifying that by posting, "with firsthand knowledge."

The ICIG’s office did, however, accurately note that the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) does not require “first-hand knowledge.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/02/the-key-point-about-whistleblowers-first-hand-knowledge-isnt-the-law-its-the-shady-regulation-changes/

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22459
  • SC è un asino
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2019, 04:07:36 PM »

The ICIG’s office did, however, accurately note that the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) does not require “first-hand knowledge.


Is it true they rewrote that for this particular person?
Y

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40949
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #55 on: November 09, 2019, 04:13:27 PM »
Is it true they rewrote that for this particular person?

Could be. Anything is possible. Who are they?

JustPlaneJane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4480
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #56 on: November 09, 2019, 05:43:42 PM »
Is it true they rewrote that for this particular person?

Absolutely, only a liberal idiot would believe otherwise

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 57811
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #57 on: November 09, 2019, 05:59:58 PM »
All this fake rage from the left building up to these "gotcha" moments only to be let down, AGAIN, has to be taking it's toll on the lefts ego and public image. Aren't any of you left leaning getbiggers interested in beating Trump with policies? Or are you going to continue to waste taxpayers money and time chasing some bullshit story your representatives dreamt up to get Trump out of office at any cost?

As far as this whistleblower bullshit, it's not holding water, the guys named has been leaked and he's been outed as a far left supporter with a far left supporting lawyer that has been crying about impeachment since the day Trump took office. ::)
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40949
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #58 on: November 09, 2019, 06:29:16 PM »
Absolutely, only a liberal idiot would believe otherwise

No matter. It has been written into law and until someone changes that, it stands.

JustPlaneJane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4480
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #59 on: November 09, 2019, 06:30:06 PM »
All this fake rage from the left building up to these "gotcha" moments only to be let down, AGAIN, has to be taking it's toll on the lefts ego and public image. Aren't any of you left leaning getbiggers interested in beating Trump with policies? Or are you going to continue to waste taxpayers money and time chasing some bullshit story your representatives dreamt up to get Trump out of office at any cost?

As far as this whistleblower bullshit, it's not holding water, the guys named has been leaked and he's been outed as a far left supporter with a far left supporting lawyer that has been crying about impeachment since the day Trump took office. ::)

Liberal Policy:

$52,000,000,000,000 for healthcare
$97,000,000,000,000 for New Green Deal
$30,000,000,000,000 for Illegal Immigrants

Yeah.....probably better run on “Hate Trump”.

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 57811
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #60 on: November 10, 2019, 07:49:20 AM »
Liberal Policy:

$52,000,000,000,000 for healthcare
$97,000,000,000,000 for New Green Deal
$30,000,000,000,000 for Illegal Immigrants

Yeah.....probably better run on “Hate Trump”.

They push the idea of a utopian society while hiding the truth about the personal freedoms that would be lost and the cost to the normal citizens pocketbook. Democrats are scum.
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #61 on: November 12, 2019, 09:34:36 AM »
Only Illegal for Intel IG to Name ‘Whistleblower’: ‘No Overarching’ Identity Protection
Whistleblowers: What does US law say about them?© AFP/File Brendan Smialowski
EDWIN MORA
11 Nov 2019

The law does not explicitly prevent anyone other than the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) who received the complaint that triggered the impeachment inquiry from outing the identity of the so-called “whistleblower,” several mainstream media outlets have conceded in recent days.

Even left-wing mainstream media outlets—CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), and Reuters — determined that, certainly, no law prohibits President Donald Trump or members of Congress from disclosing the name of the leaker who sparked the impeachment inquiry.

CNN acknowledged on November 8, “It is true no law explicitly prevents anyone, other than the IG [inspector general] and their staff, from revealing the name of a whistleblower.”

On November 6, National Public Radio (NPR) added:

In recent days, President Trump and his allies have amplified their calls for the whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry to be identified, presenting the question of whether it would be a crime for the president to unmask the anonymous whistleblower.

According to four former top federal government officials who worked in intelligence and national security [even under former President Barack Obama], the answer is no. …Similarly, if a news outlet, member of Congress or member of the public outed the whistleblower, legal experts said, no criminal law would be violated.

“There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal law,” said Dan Meyer, a lawyer and the former executive director of the intelligence community whistleblower program. “Congress has never provided that protection.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) acknowledged that much, threatening via Twitter on November 6 to introduce legislation to make identifying the “whistleblower” illegal.

Rep. Eric Swalwell

@RepSwalwell
In the future, you will go to jail if you out a whistleblower. Legislation coming.

110K
6:42 PM - Nov 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
38K people are talking about this

“It is completely clear that no one else has any legal obligation to protect the whistleblower’s identity at all. Such would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment even past the lack of statutory requirement,” Red State noted.

On October 3, the New York Times acknowledged:

The legal prohibition on disclosing the [“whistleblower”] name applies only to [Intelligence Community IG Michael] Atkinson. It does not bar Mr. Trump and his allies from trying to identify him or disclosing his name if they figure it out. (It would be illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for any official to disclose his name if he is a covert agent, but no one has suggested that he is.)

The Times goes on to note that the officials who gave information to the “whistleblower” are “probably not” guaranteed anonymity or protected from reprisals.

Although it is not illegal to name the leaker behind the impeachment probe, there could be some repercussions for those who out the “whistleblower,” NPR warned, adding:

A member of Congress who reveals the whistleblower’s identity could be removed from committees or face other legislative sanctions; a member of the public risks a civil lawsuit from the whistleblower’s legal team, which has threatened to hold anyone who reveals the name personally liable if the disclosure results in harm to the whistleblower or the person’s family.

Workplace retaliation against the whistleblower following disclosure would constitute a federal crime.

The bottom line is, Trump and members of Congress are exempt from criminal charges from revealing the “whistleblower’s” name, but Donald Trump Jr. may not.

“Once the [‘whistleblower’] complaint is out of the inspector general’s hands the law does little to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity, said McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm,” according to Reuters.

Trump outing the “whistleblower” could be considered a form of retaliation. Still, it would not violate any laws, Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under Obama, told NPR.

In 2014, American lawmakers formally put into law a directive from former U.S. President Barack Obama that supplemented the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 to protect IC “whistleblowers” from workplace retaliation.

However, John Cohen, a former official in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), recently told Reuters the directive “does not necessarily prevent disclosure of the identity of the whistleblower, which may subject the individual to retaliation from others.”

On August 12, the “whistleblower” lodged a complaint with IG Atkinson about a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate corruption allegations against his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, in exchange for aid, the leaker claimed.

The Bidens, Trump, and Zelensky have all denied any wrongdoing.

Left-wing mainstream media outlets are refusing to release the name of the “whistleblower.”

On October 30, however, Real Clear Investigations suggested that anti-Trump CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella is the “whistleblower” behind the complaint at the heart of the impeachment probe.

The Washington Examiner noted, however, that no one has been able to provide a definitive confirmation that Ciaramella is indeed the leaker, adding that other names have surfaced as possible suspects.

Ciaramella’s name appears in at least one of the transcripts of closed-door testimony provided by impeachment probe witnesses.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/11/only-illegal-for-intel-ig-to-name-whistleblower-no-overarching-identity-protection/

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22459
  • SC è un asino
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #62 on: November 12, 2019, 09:46:27 AM »
If a whistleblower worked for the opposing party historically, had only second hand knowledge, worked with the opposing party beforehand, and had to have the whistleblower rules changed to even warrant "whistleblower" status, it becomes a unique case.

The outrage is ludicrous, and false.

Y

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #63 on: November 12, 2019, 10:05:13 AM »
If a whistleblower worked for the opposing party historically, had only second hand knowledge, worked with the opposing party beforehand, and had to have the whistleblower rules changed to even warrant "whistleblower" status, it becomes a unique case.

The outrage is ludicrous, and false.



Amazing how they took the entire country through the Russia hoax and are doing it again with this nonsense.  Crazy. 

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22459
  • SC è un asino
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #64 on: November 12, 2019, 12:20:24 PM »
Amazing how they took the entire country through the Russia hoax and are doing it again with this nonsense.  Crazy. 

They kind of have to, since they've overplayed their cards.

They know it's done after the House inquiry.

This way they "save face" with their party.

Think about how many Democrats were talking impeachemnt BEFORE this whistleblower thing.

A rational mind would see it for what it is.

Think about it another way - if it DID get through the Senate, and Pence was President, would, in the lens of the Democrats, the country be better off?  Nope. This is all hoping it influences 2020.
Y

SOMEPARTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15904
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #65 on: November 12, 2019, 12:25:10 PM »
Think about it. They have to do something to "resist" for their hard left base. They have a whole year to try and keep Trump from a SCOTUS nominee among other policy advancements. If they completely sit out or pass something bipartisan those looking to revenge vote may not show up at all.

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40949
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #66 on: November 12, 2019, 12:34:15 PM »
Knowing who the whistle blower is changes nothing if there is enough other evidence to rule on impeachment. Whether it is against the law to reveal a whistle blower's identity or not, doing so is wrong.

If my neighbors were engaging in a clearly violent domestic battle that seems likely to end badly, I would anonymously call 911. I wouldn't want my identity revealed to violent people who lived in such close proximity, for fear of retaliation.

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22459
  • SC è un asino
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #67 on: November 12, 2019, 12:55:52 PM »
Knowing who the whistle blower is changes nothing if there is enough other evidence to rule on impeachment. Whether it is against the law to reveal a whistle blower's identity or not, doing so is wrong.

If my neighbors were engaging in a clearly violent domestic battle that seems likely to end badly, I would anonymously call 911. I wouldn't want my identity revealed to violent people who lived in such close proximity, for fear of retaliation.

You are not thinking outside the context of the call itself.

If he's coordinated with Schiff before "whistleblowing" it shows more behavior by the Democrats of a concerted effort to remove this president by any means possible.  That can have massive ramifications on the voting public.
Y

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #68 on: November 12, 2019, 01:10:53 PM »
They kind of have to, since they've overplayed their cards.

They know it's done after the House inquiry.

This way they "save face" with their party.

Think about how many Democrats were talking impeachemnt BEFORE this whistleblower thing.

A rational mind would see it for what it is.

Think about it another way - if it DID get through the Senate, and Pence was President, would, in the lens of the Democrats, the country be better off?  Nope. This is all hoping it influences 2020.

I agree.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #69 on: November 12, 2019, 01:12:38 PM »
Knowing who the whistle blower is changes nothing if there is enough other evidence to rule on impeachment. Whether it is against the law to reveal a whistle blower's identity or not, doing so is wrong.

If my neighbors were engaging in a clearly violent domestic battle that seems likely to end badly, I would anonymously call 911. I wouldn't want my identity revealed to violent people who lived in such close proximity, for fear of retaliation.

It isn't against the law for anyone other than the IG to reveal Eric Ciaramella's name. 

There is nothing wrong about revealing Eric Ciaramella's name, particularly when he is a lying hack. 

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15956
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #70 on: November 12, 2019, 01:15:13 PM »
It isn't against the law for anyone other than the IG to reveal Eric Ciaramella's name. 

There is nothing wrong about revealing Eric Ciaramella's name, particularly when he is a lying hack. 


Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40949
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #71 on: November 12, 2019, 01:28:19 PM »
You are not thinking outside the context of the call itself.

If he's coordinated with Schiff before "whistleblowing" it shows more behavior by the Democrats of a concerted effort to remove this president by any means possible.  That can have massive ramifications on the voting public.

The call is the issue. Had Trump never made it, we'd not be discussing Trump's impeachment. The witnesses' testimony will determine whether Trump committed an impeachable act, not the whistle blower.


Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22459
  • SC è un asino
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #72 on: November 12, 2019, 01:45:39 PM »
The call is the issue. Had Trump never made it, we'd not be discussing Trump's impeachment. The witnesses' testimony will determine whether Trump committed an impeachable act, not the whistle blower.



I've explained the call.

This doesn't counter the point I made about the bigger picture.  Whether you want to believe there is more to this than the call or not, it doesn't matter - it certainly exists.

There are multiple issues here - if the whistleblower wasn't partisan, didn't circumvent the process, and the Democrats didn't change the rules to allow this, fine.  But they did, and it shows a very disturbing pattern, one that could fall flat outside the never trumper base.
Y

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40949
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #73 on: November 12, 2019, 02:02:58 PM »
I've explained the call.

This doesn't counter the point I made about the bigger picture.  Whether you want to believe there is more to this than the call or not, it doesn't matter - it certainly exists.

There are multiple issues here - if the whistleblower wasn't partisan, didn't circumvent the process, and the Democrats didn't change the rules to allow this, fine.  But they did, and it shows a very disturbing pattern, one that could fall flat outside the never trumper base.

You and I can go around and around about this an yet never find a mutual resolution. You explained the call which is fine, accept your explanation is based on your perception, just as if I explained the call, it would be based on my perception. Perceptions can be less than accurate.

I'll say no more about the whistle blower, at this time. I am anxious to hear the witnesses' testimony. Perhaps they will provide some clarity and maybe not. We won't know until we've heard them. It is possible we won't know anymore than we do now after all is said and done.



Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The "Whistleblower"
« Reply #74 on: November 12, 2019, 04:55:15 PM »