Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Whistleblower identified

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    The Whistle Blower Protection Act (you posted a legitimate source) is a scam, because after 9-11, the FISA courts played havoc with it over National Security.

    The Bush administration abused the system, in my opinion, then Obama really opened the floodgates - while pretending to be all about "protecting whistle blowers", he ended up, according to the Long Island Press and other sources, prosecuting them like crazy...


    As for Obama’s record, here’s what history will show: In his eight years in office, the Obama Justice Department spearheaded eight Espionage Act prosecutions, more than all US administrations combined. Journalists were also caught in the crosshairs: Investigators sought phone records for Associated Press journalists, threatened to jail an investigative reporter for The New York Times, and named a Fox News reporter a co-conspirator in a leak case. In Texas, a journalist investigating private defense contractors became the focus of a federal prosecution and was initially charged for sharing a hyperlink containing hacked information that had already been made public.


    and

    The Obama administration has deployed the Espionage Act against whistleblowers with such devastating effect that it punishes leakers who believe they’re acting in the public good and creates a chilling effect from national security agencies on down—a show of force that may make potential whistleblowers to think twice about disclosing information, according to rights groups and whistleblower advocates.

    “The Obama administration has presided over the most draconian crackdown on national security and intelligence community whistleblowers in US history,” said Jesselyn Radack, a whistleblower herself and a national security attorney, at an event last February in Washington, D.C. to support the imprisoned whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling, a lawyer and former CIA employee. “The Justice Department has used the antiquated Espionage Act as a bludgeon to threaten, intimidate, silence and imprison whistleblowers for allegedly mishandling classified information.”

    Timothy Karr, senior director of strategy for Free Press, said one would have to go back seven presidential administrations to find someone as prodigious in cracking down on whistleblowers as Obama.

    “The Obama administration is like the Nixon administration in many respects,” he said at the same event. “The Nixon administration tried to silence whistleblowers using illegal means. But the Obama administration is trying to silence whistleblowers using a misinterpretation of the laws that are on the books, and they have done it to greater impact than Nixon could ever imagine.”


    One man's "whistle blower" is another man's traitor.
    What did anyone expect from someone who sicced the federal government on a couple reporters for having the temerity to break a story that Obama wanted to be the one to do so.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      What did anyone expect from someone who sicced the federal government on a couple reporters for having the temerity to break a story that Obama wanted to be the one to do so.
      But that was perfectly acceptable because it was THEIR guy abusing the system and going after other people.

      The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
        Is this the law in question? Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.

        There are various "Whistleblower" laws. Really, none that I've found seem to be a perfect fit. This one only specifically bars the "Special Counsel" from identifying Ciaramella, and no such entity is currently involved AFAIK.

        I do wish people like The Great One Levin would make a practice of citing the actual statute, by official name, H.R. number, Senate number, whatever -- something specific -- rather than just saying, "Ciaramella doesn't qualify as a whistleblower under the statute" or "The statute does not require anonymity."
        Ken Star, who knows a thing or two about these things, said that Ciaramella does not qualify for whistleblower status since he went to Adam Schiff first before filing any sort of complaint. When he did that he became nothing more than a common leaker.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Ken Star, who knows a thing or two about these things, said that Ciaramella does not qualify for whistleblower status since he went to Adam Schiff first before filing any sort of complaint. When he did that he became nothing more than a common leaker.
          AND, we're to believe that Schiffty Adam doesn't have a clue who it is, or that maybe he does, but it's "ok" to lie about it because everybody else on the planet is clueless about who the alleged whistle blower is. You really can't make this stuff up.

          It amazes me how otherwise intelligent people can get duped into believing - and even defending - this crap.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            AND, we're to believe that Schiffty Adam doesn't have a clue who it is, or that maybe he does, but it's "ok" to lie about it because everybody else on the planet is clueless about who the alleged whistle blower is. You really can't make this stuff up.

            It amazes me how otherwise intelligent people can get duped into believing - and even defending - this crap.
            And let's be brutally honest, if this was a "whistleblower" who was seeking to get Obama impeached the MSM would have their name in headlines and by now we'd know what sort of grades they got when they were in Elementary School. There would be a mini tent city populated by reporters on the whistleblower's front lawn waiting to excoriate them with questions like "How long have you been a racist?"

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              And let's be brutally honest, if this was a "whistleblower" who was seeking to get Obama impeached the MSM would have their name in headlines and by now...
              They'd be camped in his front lawn demanding a statement.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Ken Star, who knows a thing or two about these things, said that Ciaramella does not qualify for whistleblower status since he went to Adam Schiff first before filing any sort of complaint. When he did that he became nothing more than a common leaker.
                How does he know he went to Adam Schiff first?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                  How does he know he went to Adam Schiff first?
                  It's pretty common knowledge that the alleged whistle blower went to Schiff (and or his committee) before filing papers.

                  Whistleblower spoke to Schiff aides before filing complaint

                  WASHINGTON (AP) — The whistleblower who raised concerns about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine spoke to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee before filing a formal complaint, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations of wrongdoing that triggered their impeachment inquiry.

                  The whistleblower, a member of the intelligence community, contacted the committee for guidance on how to report “possible wrongdoing,” according to Patrick Boland, a spokesman for the Intelligence Committee’s chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Boland said that “at no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance” and that it is a regular occurrence for whistleblowers to seek guidance from the committee.

                  “Consistent with the committee’s longstanding procedures, committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an inspector general and to seek legal counsel,” Boland said. Other congressional committees follow a similar process.


                  Why would the alleged whistleblower - presumably a really smart guy - go to a politician rather than legal counsel?

                  It's hard to believe that things went just like the "boiler plate language" suggests - that the committee (and or Schiff himself) didn't at least get a general layout of the complaint before passing him along.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                    No, it does not. I read the thing - go pull it yourself if you don't believe me.
                    "No it does not" what? It does not protect federal whistleblowers? Is that what you're suggesting? Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation, that is the whole purpose of the law, so I'm not sure what you were reading.
                    Last edited by JimL; 11-23-2019, 09:56 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Yes, that's the talkingpoints version.
                      Talking points are either true or false, CP, they're not false just because you call them talking points. In this case they're true, it's the job of Congress to oversee the executive, and that means to investigate alleged abuses of power, and then to impeach if it's deemed by them to be necessary. Simply saying "that's the talking points version" amounts to saying nothing.

                      Comment


                      • Moderator Notice

                        Since the identity of the alleged whistle blower has not been officially revealed as of this date and time, it is the position of the owners and staff of this board that his or her identity not be stated as fact. Any statement revealing his/her identity is solely the responsibility of the poster making such claim or reference.

                        ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                        Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Talking points are either true or false, CP, they're not false just because you call them talking points.
                          When the talking points are from a fringe perspective, Jim, they're not likely to be facts. Or, at best, very selective facts.

                          In this case they're true, it's the job of Congress to oversee the executive, and that means to investigate alleged abuses of power, and then to impeach if it's deemed by them to be necessary. Simply saying "that's the talking points version" amounts to saying nothing.
                          Jim, your Impeachment hopes are smashed, brother. Your hero, Schiff, is largely to blame, because he turned this "oversight" into an intensely partisan circus, making himself both chief prosecutor, judge, media commentator...

                          I'm so glad he's on your side.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            It's pretty common knowledge that the alleged whistle blower went to Schiff (and or his committee) before filing papers.

                            Whistleblower spoke to Schiff aides before filing complaint

                            WASHINGTON (AP) — The whistleblower who raised concerns about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine spoke to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee before filing a formal complaint, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations of wrongdoing that triggered their impeachment inquiry.

                            The whistleblower, a member of the intelligence community, contacted the committee for guidance on how to report “possible wrongdoing,” according to Patrick Boland, a spokesman for the Intelligence Committee’s chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Boland said that “at no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance” and that it is a regular occurrence for whistleblowers to seek guidance from the committee.

                            “Consistent with the committee’s longstanding procedures, committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an inspector general and to seek legal counsel,” Boland said. Other congressional committees follow a similar process.


                            Why would the alleged whistleblower - presumably a really smart guy - go to a politician rather than legal counsel?

                            It's hard to believe that things went just like the "boiler plate language" suggests - that the committee (and or Schiff himself) didn't at least get a general layout of the complaint before passing him along.
                            I don't know if it's that hard to believe based on this.
                            Based on the article the conversation could have just been:

                            Whistleblower - Hello! could I get some advice on how to report possible wrongdoing?
                            Staff - contact the the inspector general and seek legal counsel.
                            Whistleblower - thank you! bye!
                            Staff - bye!

                            ---end---

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                              I don't know if it's that hard to believe based on this.
                              Based on the article the conversation could have just been:

                              Whistleblower - Hello! could I get some advice on how to report possible wrongdoing?
                              Staff - contact the the inspector general and seek legal counsel.
                              Whistleblower - thank you! bye!
                              Staff - bye!

                              ---end---
                              Sure, that's possible. I just can't see Schiff doing that, knowing the way he has played fast and loose with other matters.

                              I suspect he got the information, then it was more like, "ok, this conversation never happened, take this complaint to ...."

                              I'm just not very trusting of partisan politicians.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                When the talking points are from a fringe perspective, Jim, they're not likely to be facts. Or, at best, very selective facts.



                                Jim, your Impeachment hopes are smashed, brother. Your hero, Schiff, is largely to blame, because he turned this "oversight" into an intensely partisan circus, making himself both chief prosecutor, judge, media commentator...

                                I'm so glad he's on your side.
                                I'm glad as well, I appreciate honest ethical leaders like Schiff as opposed to the liars, hypocrites, and propagandists like Trump, Moscow Mitch, Jim Jordan, and the Lindsey Grahams of the world that you look up to.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                251 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                338 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X