Trump Comes Under Fire After Sharing Name Of Alleged Whistleblower On Twitter

[NorrinRadd]

Can I please get a direct answer to my question?

"I believe spreading the name of an alleged whistleblower is beneficial / neutral / harmful to our national interest."

Harmless. Or "neutral," if you prefer.

Ciaramella's name has been mentioned publicly many times, even here at Tweb. If there was ever a time when revealing it might have been injurious to "national interest," that time has long since passed by.

[NorrinRadd]

That's an assumption of Trump's intent. The question was about the consequence of his action.

--Sam

Says the silly mope who a few posts earlier said this (emphasis mine):

"...the idea is clearly to create a punitive environment for whistleblowers in the Trump administration."

[Teallaura]

If the whistleblower approached HPSCI staff and said "There was some bad stuff going on; I reported it to CIA legal counsel but it got all hung up and I don't know where to go now" and HPSCI staff said "Get a lawyer and go to the ICIG" that's not a leak.

The statute requires that classified information is sent to ICIG. The ICWPA statute is intended to allow whistleblower complaints while protecting classified information. So long as the whistleblower wasn't providing HPSCI with any potentially classified information -- or really anything they could work with at all -- it's not a leak.

And since we've been all over the ICWPA before, you should know that.

--Sam

So, our leaker boy is too incompetent to read a stupid manual? Or maybe too dumb to find it? Or perhaps too idiotic to recall all those trainings on dealing with classified information?

Went to an EXTERNAL contact despite having security clearance indicative of confidentiality training - minus bothering to read he manual for whistle blowers.... Leak, not whistle blower, and you darn well know it.

[firstfloor]

I don't care to defend it, but I'm wondering who out there didn't already know who the alleged whistle blower was?

[Sparko]

1. SCOTUS is doing that. Right now. Because ...

2. The House have submitted to subpoenas to Mulvaney, at least two OMB officials, and others that are being ignored.

3. The House is currently demanding that the Senate allow for a trial with these witnesses so the delay in sending the articles of impeachment is directly the result of Trump blocking the witnesses.

The whistleblower complaint included, but was not limited to hearsay. Where hearsay was involved, the relevant witnesses either verified the whistleblower complaint in testimony to Congress or were blocked from testifying by Trump.

Goodness, people.

--Sam

So basically you just admitted the House didn't have enough evidence to impeach Trump.

You can't just impeach someone out of spite, then expect to find evidence afterwards.

[Sparko]

Both ICIG and Acting DNI, as well as numerous senior Republican senators, have said that the whistleblower's anonymity is protected as part of his or her protection against retaliation.

Please explain how Trump putting the alleged whistleblower on blast serves to protect against retaliation, rather than invite it.

--Sam

If Trump is guilty then shouldn't the whistleblower be praised and become a hero? Why is he afforded anonymity and the other witnesses (who you claim have actual knowledge of the crime where the whistleblower doesn't) are not? Aren't they afraid of retaliation?

Besides, Trump can't do anything to the whistleblower anyway. The "retaliation" is in regards to the workplace and Ciaramella works for the CIA, not the White House.

[Cow Poke]

If he revealed a name we didn't already know, I'd be agreeing.

[oxmixmudd]

So basically you just admitted the House didn't have enough evidence to impeach Trump.

You can't just impeach someone out of spite, then expect to find evidence afterwards.

Distorting the meaning of another person's post is a dishonest thing to do and is often mostly done to cover the fact there is no coherent response that refutes the content of said post.

There is nothing in Sam's post that admits or implies there was not enough evidence to impeach.

[Sam]

Says the silly mope who a few posts earlier said this (emphasis mine):

"...the idea is clearly to create a punitive environment for whistleblowers in the Trump administration."

Trump has likened the whistleblower and their sources to "spies and treason" and mused about what happened to them in the "old days when we were smart". There's not much left to assume.

A good chunk of Trump support demands his followers forget or ignore what he actually says and does but it would be less humbling if y'all paid more attention.

--Sam

[firstfloor]

If he revealed a name we didn't already know, I'd be agreeing.

It is always good to ask yourself what you would think if Clinton had done this or that (assuming she was POTUS); for the purpose of calibrating your personal moral compass and sense of justice.

[Sam]

If Trump is guilty then shouldn't the whistleblower be praised and become a hero? Why is he afforded anonymity and the other witnesses (who you claim have actual knowledge of the crime where the whistleblower doesn't) are not? Aren't they afraid of retaliation?

Besides, Trump can't do anything to the whistleblower anyway. The "retaliation" is in regards to the workplace and Ciaramella works for the CIA, not the White House.

The whistleblower is protected under statute; if they had wanted to testify, that option was available. Since the complaint relied on other fact witnesses and official documents, however, there's nothing that the whistleblower could likely add to the fact record. So it probably wouldn't be in their interest to invite more harassment and worse from folks like y'all.

Every Trump administration witness who did come forward and testify against the orders of the White House, inviting that harassment or worse on themselves in the process, should be praised and considered an honorable public servant, however. We can agree on that.

Your second paragraph is notable only for its Everest-height purposeful ignorance. Like trying to say that Trump couldn't do anything to Peter Strzok or any number of "Obama people" in various agencies because he works out of the WH residence and not the Hoover Building.

--Sam

[Sam]

So, our leaker boy is too incompetent to read a stupid manual? Or maybe too dumb to find it? Or perhaps too idiotic to recall all those trainings on dealing with classified information?

Went to an EXTERNAL contact despite having security clearance indicative of confidentiality training - minus bothering to read he manual for whistle blowers.... Leak, not whistle blower, and you darn well know it.

Well, you feel free to march right up to the Trump-appointed ICIG and Acting DNI and lay out your legal theory, I guess.

The lengths people will go to in order to delegitimatize a whistleblower so they can be punished without consequence is more than worrisome -- it's a peek into a 1984/brownshirt mentality that warns us to this day that, yes, it can happen here.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

So basically you just admitted the House didn't have enough evidence to impeach Trump.

You can't just impeach someone out of spite, then expect to find evidence afterwards.

It's a rather curious distortion of the law to indict someone, and then try to use the indictment itself as leverage for gathering evidence to support the indictment.

[Mountain Man]

It is always good to ask yourself what you would think if Clinton had done this or that (assuming she was POTUS); for the purpose of calibrating your personal moral compass and sense of justice.

If the hypothetical President Hillary revealed information that had been public knowledge for months, I can't see how anybody would have valid grounds to criticize her.

[Mountain Man]

You might be right about what the legality is for the average citizen like yourself. I'd hoped you were better than this.

But it doesn't really matter. It is incredibly sad, but I'm quite sure there is no conscience there to be appealed to. You've laughed or spat on (figuratively) every appeal to conscience I've ever made to you.

My last appeal to you is this: please stop going down this path before it destroys you.

You really are quite full of yourself.