Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[Teallaura]

Already pointed out the contextual misreading of the statutory language.

...

PROVE IT. Show me EXACTLY where the law says differently. The precise section - nothing less. Not your interpretation - the actual law.

If not, the point stands.

[Sam]

PROVE IT. Show me EXACTLY where the law says differently. The precise section - nothing less. Not your interpretation - the actual law.

If not, the point stands.

No, it doesn't, for all the reasons I mentioned and for the same reason that someone excitedly pointing to a libel statute over something that clearly doesn't count as libel isn't really worth trying to persuade. Can't reason someone out of a bad reading of law when they're not actually interested in the statute as a matter of law in the first place.

--Sam

[Sam]

Good practice for y'all:

Ask yourself "Why was this law enacted?" Was Congress trying to gag people from coming forward with allegations of abuse? Was it trying to make sure that IC employees couldn't share even non-classified information with people outside the IC? Or was Congress trying to fix a loophole in whistleblower protection laws that didn't take classified information into account?

If the former: you might have an argument regarding this case (but would still run afoul of 1A)

If the latter: there is no argument to be made and it's just a bad reading of the law from the start

(Hint: the legislative history shows that it's the latter)

--Sam

[Teallaura]

No, it doesn't, for all the reasons I mentioned and for the same reason that someone excitedly pointing to a libel statute over something that clearly doesn't count as libel isn't really worth trying to persuade. Can't reason someone out of a bad reading of law when they're not actually interested in the statute as a matter of law in the first place.

--Sam

Translation: oops, can't prove what I claimed so I'll just declare victory and run along...

[Teallaura]

Good practice for y'all:

...

Better practice - read the actual law and see what it actually says.

[lilpixieofterror]

So, campaign finance law infraction, he should never have been president, correct.

By that logic, neither should Obama.

We already know he was a crook, immoral womanizing, con man. The question is about his presidency. What about since he's been in office, lilpix, what action do you think he is criminally guilty of?

None I have seen, unless making you insane is a crime.

[Mountain Man]

Good practice for y'all:

Ask yourself "Why was this law enacted?" Was Congress trying to gag people from coming forward with allegations of abuse? Was it trying to make sure that IC employees couldn't share even non-classified information with people outside the IC? Or was Congress trying to fix a loophole in whistleblower protection laws that didn't take classified information into account?

If the former: you might have an argument regarding this case (but would still run afoul of 1A)

If the latter: there is no argument to be made and it's just a bad reading of the law from the start

(Hint: the legislative history shows that it's the latter)

--Sam

Or........ was the intent to depoliticize the process by ensuring that "whistleblowers" couldn't run to Congress willy-nilly with unfounded rumors and gossip intended to hurt political rivals?

The problem with your interpretation is that the law doesn't say anything about the classification of information. But let's look at precedent: can you cite any prior instances where "whistleblowers" have been allowed to take it upon themselves to bypass the IC IG and and go directly to members of Congress simply because the information they had wasn't classified?

[Sam]

Or........ was the intent to depoliticize the process by ensuring that "whistleblowers" couldn't run to Congress willy-nilly with unfounded rumors and gossip intended to hurt political rivals?

The problem with your interpretation is that the law doesn't say anything about the classification of information. But let's look at precedent: can you cite any prior instances where "whistleblowers" have been allowed to take it upon themselves to bypass the IC IG and and go directly to members of Congress simply because the information they had wasn't classified?

Well, then it's a good thing the whistleblower went through the ICIG!

The whistleblower never took the complaint to Congress, as outlined i the statute.

If you're trying to argue that the ICWPA doesn't deal with employees handling classified information in an abuse complaint, you are showcasing a rather incredible ignorance of what the law was all about.

--Sam

[rogue06]

By that logic, neither should Obama.

Nor any of those nominated by their parties over the past several decades.

[Sam]

Nor any of those nominated by their parties over the past several decades.

What campaign finance violation was the Obama campaign found to have made?

What campaign finance violation was Trump personally found to have directed?

Among the numerous differences, the wording above gives a clue why the situations are not equal.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Well, then it's a good thing the whistleblower went through the ICIG!

The whistleblower never took the complaint to Congress, as outlined i the statute.

If you're trying to argue that the ICWPA doesn't deal with employees handling classified information in an abuse complaint, you are showcasing a rather incredible ignorance of what the law was all about.

--Sam

Apparently the "the law is all about" something that nobody ever bothered to put into writing. And your inability to cite any legal precedent for the current situation answers my question.

As for the whistleblower, yes, he did eventually go the IG but only after he spilled the beans to Schiff who is rumored to have helped him write the complaint, so still a clear violation of the law.

[Roy]

What campaign finance violation was Trump personally found to have directed?

While technically a campaign finance law, the statute violated in this instance isn't really concerned with finance, but with foreign influence.

Asking the governor of Florida to investigate your political opponents is legal.
Asking the governor of Jamaica to investigate your political opponents is illegal.

[lilpixieofterror]

What campaign finance violation was the Obama campaign found to have made?

What campaign finance violation was Trump personally found to have directed?

Among the numerous differences, the wording above gives a clue why the situations are not equal.

--Sam

All you got to do is search ‘Obama violated campaign finance laws’ to see that it really happened.

[Sam]

While technically a campaign finance law, the statute violated in this instance isn't really concerned with finance, but with foreign influence.

Asking the governor of Florida to investigate your political opponents is legal.
Asking the governor of Jamaica to investigate your political opponents is illegal.

Yes, true -- what I'm referring to, though, is that Trump has already been directly implicated in a felony campaign finance reform case brought to court by SDNY ("Individual-1" in the Stormy Daniels payment).

So Trump, unlike Obama, personally directed a direct, felonious (successful!) attempt to illegally affect his election and we don't even have to get into the suddenly-shifting sand of whether asking foreign countries to feed election assistance is a bad thing.

--Sam

[Sam]

Apparently the "the law is all about" something that nobody ever bothered to put into writing. And your inability to cite any legal precedent for the current situation answers my question.

As for the whistleblower, yes, he did eventually go the IG but only after he spilled the beans to Schiff who is rumored to have helped him write the complaint, so still a clear violation of the law.

"rumored to"