For Snowflakes Too Lazy To Look It Up & Think For Themselves: Whistle Blower Protection Act of 1989

[colfax_m]

The rules are a matter of debate. But you missed the larger point that it wasn’t Congress who labeled him a whistleblower.

1. WHO, again, labeled the non-eye-witness, heasay-passing non-qualifying 'whistle blower' a 'whistle blower'?

- The ICIG, the same douchebag who changed the rules so the complaint could go right to Schiff and his Committee?

- The non-whistle blower' and complaint dismissed by the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ BEFORE Schiff turned this into his own public 'Collusion Delusion 2.0: Ukraine'?

2. On WHAT was the IC IG's decision to label this individual a 'Whistle Blower'?

Again, the prosecutorial divisions of the DOJ had dismissed the individual and the complain as bogus hearsay...and the law itself makes it clear the individual does not qualify.
- I guess this is what happens when the Deep State Intel Community once again attempts to assume the role and duties / decisions of the DOJ.

3. All of the above was made clear to Schiff, especially the part about the non-existent non-whistle blower NOT meeting the requirements to be a 'whistle blower'....SO WHY IS LYING TREASONOUS SCHIFF STILL INSISTING / STILL ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE HIS APPROX 400 FELLOW LAWYER CONGRESSMEN THAT THE NON-WHISTLE BLOWER does MEET THE QUALIFICATION SET BY LAW AND THAT A LAW EXISTS GRANTING HIS NON-WHISTLE BLOWER BOTH ANONYMITY AND IMMUNITY...WHEN NO SUCH LAW AND NO SUCHPROTECTION IS AFFORDED?!

There were no rule changes at the ICIG. The DoJ is headed by William Barr who has decided that the presidency has near limitless power with zero oversight. Their review of the complaint focused solely on campaign finance violations which is absurd. There was no actual investigation. No witnesses interviewed. No records subpoenaed. Not surprising given Trump’s legal argument is that he can’t be investigated let alone prosecuted for anything.

So hanging your hat on the DoJ decision is about as flimsy as it gets.

If Trump weren’t such a pussy he’d reveal the name of the whistleblower today. But he sends Nunes to do his dirty work. The only reason to reveal the name of the whistleblower is intimidation pure and simple. Republicans are a bunch of dirty thugs.

 

[colfax_m]

If that’s the case, why is Nunes and Jordan spending their time trying to dox the whistleblower when Trump could release his name in one order?

1. IF there is any chance of there being a REAL non-qualifying whistle blower who started all of this then it is President Trump's Constitutional Right to face his accuser.

2, Speaker of the House Pelosi penned a letter to all 435 Congressmen - already presented / reported by the media - declaring the whistle blower MUST testify if such an Impeachment investigation based on their 2nd-hand hearsay is / was to be conducted.

3. If Schiff is just LYING / presenting another 'parody' as real evidence again, which constitutes Sedition and Treason in this attempt to remove a President from power, they want to force Schiff to admit it is all his creation, the continuation of his 2+ year crusade to oust the President.

1. Right to “face your accuser” doesn’t apply to impeachment. This isn’t a criminal proceeding. Even if it did, the accuser is Congress, not the whistleblower.
2. No idea what you’re talking about.
3. this is the dumbest conspiracy theory. Is anyone stupid enough to believe the ICIG would allow that to happen?

 

[easyt65]

There were no rule changes at the ICIG.

I immediately stopped after reading this 1st sentence, which proves you are either ignorant / uneducated or a liar:

ICIG Admits it Changed Whistleblower Rules BECAUSE of the Anti-Trump Complaint

"Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson released a statement on Monday addressing the changes. In the letter Atkinson admitted the changes to the form were made at the time of the partisan CIA leaker’s complaint."

Unlike easily emotionally-manipulated, willingly duped, delusional / indoctrinated snowflake sheep, I do not just spew uneducated OPINION, DENIAL, AND / OR LIES.

I post facts substantiated by links, testimony, documents, laws, etc....

I'm sorry, but you have been temporarily placed in 'Discussion / Debate Probationary Time-Out' due to your loss of credibility, until such time as you prove what you say has any credibility.

Have a nice day.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Second hand and third hand knowledge doesnt work. Just another reason this is a donkey show.

That is why the prosecutorial division of the DOJ rejected this 'non-whistle blower' complaint, why every court in the land would immediately dismiss it, and who they had to change the rules and go straight to Schiff, the only lying, leaking traitor who would use it as the basis for another coup attempt.

Yep, thats exactly right. What libs forget is that this will now set a precedent for future R congress' to just name some guy off the street a whistleblower and scream impeachment.

The ICIG named him a whistleblower, not Congress.

Doesn't matter. Under the rules specified, he isn't a whistleblower.

The rules are a matter of debate. But you missed the larger point that it wasn’t Congress who labeled him a whistleblower.

No I didn't. This dude showed up on schiffs front door and was coached. End. Of. Story.

 

[easyt65]

No I didn't. This dude showed up on schiffs front door and was coached. End. Of. Story.

Schiff coached Cohen for 10 hours trying to pep him for his repeat perjurous testimony testimony before Congress, testimony that DESTROYED the Democrats' false narratives then. Schiff admitted he talked to the non-whistle blower before the complaint was filed...before he began claiming he doesn't know who it is.

Schiff is a proven LIAR with no credibility.

 

[colfax_m]

There were no rule changes at the ICIG.

I immediately stopped after reading this 1st sentence, which proves you are either ignorant / uneducated or a liar:

ICIG Admits it Changed Whistleblower Rules BECAUSE of the Anti-Trump Complaint

"Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson released a statement on Monday addressing the changes. In the letter Atkinson admitted the changes to the form were made at the time of the partisan CIA leaker’s complaint."

Unlike easily emotionally-manipulated, willingly duped, delusional / indoctrinated snowflake sheep, I do not just spew uneducated OPINION, DENIAL, AND / OR LIES.

I post facts substantiated by links, testimony, documents, laws, etc....

I'm sorry, but you have been temporarily placed in 'Discussion / Debate Probationary Time-Out' due to your loss of credibility, until such time as you prove what you say has any credibility.

Have a nice day.

Why would someone who pretends to be not easily duped be posting articles from the Gateway Pundit, perhaps one of the most dishonest websites on the internet.

You clearly didn’t read or think for yourself because the statement from the ICIG doesn’t admit to changing the rules. They said they changed the wording on the form which could be misinterpreted to reflect the law about content of their complaint.

You see how the headline says they “admit to changing the rules” but when you read the article it says they “admit to changing the wording”? That’s them moving the language to manipulate you.

Think for yourself. Read the statement from the ICIG and show me where they admitted to changing the rules. It’s not in there.

here’s what they did say:
the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

and:
Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern


think for yourself and don’t let dishonest media outlets like Gateway Pundit do it for you.

 

[easyt65]

Why would someone who pretends to be not easily duped....

...keep embarrassing yourself the way you do? It truly beats the hell out of me why you want to keep doing this to yourself.

The exact law has been posted, lil' proven ignorant / ;lying snowflake - feel free to post the law Schiff claims exists that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity. DragonLady claimed it exists, yet when challenged she disappeared. Your turn.

You claimed the ICIG had no part in changing the rule....and were immediately proven to be either ignorant or a liar. (The 'jury' is still out.).

Losers and snowflakes always want to attack the source of something they don't like instead of posting evidence / anything that proves what is being reported is false. They like to make false accusations - hit and run.

Feel free to post evidence to the contrary about the IC IG....right after you post the link to the law that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity....otherwise, return to 'timeout'.

 

[colfax_m]

That is why the prosecutorial division of the DOJ rejected this 'non-whistle blower' complaint, why every court in the land would immediately dismiss it, and who they had to change the rules and go straight to Schiff, the only lying, leaking traitor who would use it as the basis for another coup attempt.

Yep, thats exactly right. What libs forget is that this will now set a precedent for future R congress' to just name some guy off the street a whistleblower and scream impeachment.

The ICIG named him a whistleblower, not Congress.

Doesn't matter. Under the rules specified, he isn't a whistleblower.

The rules are a matter of debate. But you missed the larger point that it wasn’t Congress who labeled him a whistleblower.

No I didn't. This dude showed up on schiffs front door and was coached. End. Of. Story.

Why would someone who pretends to be not easily duped....

...keep embarrassing yourself the way you do? It truly beats the hell out of me why you want to keep doing this to yourself.

The exact law has been posted, lil' proven ignorant / ;lying snowflake - feel free to post the law Schiff claims exists that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity. DragonLady claimed it exists, yet when challenged she disappeared. Your turn.

You claimed the ICIG had no part in changing the rule....and were immediately proven to be either ignorant or a liar. (The 'jury' is still out.).

Losers and snowflakes always want to attack the source of something they don't like instead of posting evidence / anything that proves what is being reported is false. They like to make false accusations - hit and run.

Feel free to post evidence to the contrary about the IC IG....right after you post the link to the law that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity....otherwise, return to 'timeout'.

I already did. You could have read the ICIG statement yourself but apparently that’s asking too much. I read the ICIG statement and quoted the relevant portions which say they updated the confusing language of the whistleblower forms to reflect the law. There was no rule change.

You haven’t proven anything other than your unwillingness to let the Gateway Pundit do your thinking for you. Ignore the text of the article and just read the original source, the statement from the ICIG.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yep, thats exactly right. What libs forget is that this will now set a precedent for future R congress' to just name some guy off the street a whistleblower and scream impeachment.

The ICIG named him a whistleblower, not Congress.

Doesn't matter. Under the rules specified, he isn't a whistleblower.

The rules are a matter of debate. But you missed the larger point that it wasn’t Congress who labeled him a whistleblower.

No I didn't. This dude showed up on schiffs front door and was coached. End. Of. Story.

Why would someone who pretends to be not easily duped....

...keep embarrassing yourself the way you do? It truly beats the hell out of me why you want to keep doing this to yourself.

The exact law has been posted, lil' proven ignorant / ;lying snowflake - feel free to post the law Schiff claims exists that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity. DragonLady claimed it exists, yet when challenged she disappeared. Your turn.

You claimed the ICIG had no part in changing the rule....and were immediately proven to be either ignorant or a liar. (The 'jury' is still out.).

Losers and snowflakes always want to attack the source of something they don't like instead of posting evidence / anything that proves what is being reported is false. They like to make false accusations - hit and run.

Feel free to post evidence to the contrary about the IC IG....right after you post the link to the law that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity....otherwise, return to 'timeout'.

I already did. You could have read the ICIG statement yourself but apparently that’s asking too much. I read the ICIG statement and quoted the relevant portions which say they updated the confusing language of the whistleblower forms to reflect the law. There was no rule change.

You haven’t proven anything other than your unwillingness to let the Gateway Pundit do your thinking for you. Ignore the text of the article and just read the original source, the statement from the ICIG.

The fact is that he had second hand and third hand knowledge and was coached by the party whose MO since day one was to "impeach that mother******".

 

[colfax_m]

The ICIG named him a whistleblower, not Congress.

Doesn't matter. Under the rules specified, he isn't a whistleblower.

The rules are a matter of debate. But you missed the larger point that it wasn’t Congress who labeled him a whistleblower.

No I didn't. This dude showed up on schiffs front door and was coached. End. Of. Story.

Why would someone who pretends to be not easily duped....

...keep embarrassing yourself the way you do? It truly beats the hell out of me why you want to keep doing this to yourself.

The exact law has been posted, lil' proven ignorant / ;lying snowflake - feel free to post the law Schiff claims exists that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity. DragonLady claimed it exists, yet when challenged she disappeared. Your turn.

You claimed the ICIG had no part in changing the rule....and were immediately proven to be either ignorant or a liar. (The 'jury' is still out.).

Losers and snowflakes always want to attack the source of something they don't like instead of posting evidence / anything that proves what is being reported is false. They like to make false accusations - hit and run.

Feel free to post evidence to the contrary about the IC IG....right after you post the link to the law that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity....otherwise, return to 'timeout'.

I already did. You could have read the ICIG statement yourself but apparently that’s asking too much. I read the ICIG statement and quoted the relevant portions which say they updated the confusing language of the whistleblower forms to reflect the law. There was no rule change.

You haven’t proven anything other than your unwillingness to let the Gateway Pundit do your thinking for you. Ignore the text of the article and just read the original source, the statement from the ICIG.

The fact is that he had second hand and third hand knowledge and was coached by the party whose MO since day one was to "impeach that mother******".

The other fact is that his report has been confirmed as accurate.

Womp whomp

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Doesn't matter. Under the rules specified, he isn't a whistleblower.

The rules are a matter of debate. But you missed the larger point that it wasn’t Congress who labeled him a whistleblower.

No I didn't. This dude showed up on schiffs front door and was coached. End. Of. Story.

Why would someone who pretends to be not easily duped....

...keep embarrassing yourself the way you do? It truly beats the hell out of me why you want to keep doing this to yourself.

The exact law has been posted, lil' proven ignorant / ;lying snowflake - feel free to post the law Schiff claims exists that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity. DragonLady claimed it exists, yet when challenged she disappeared. Your turn.

You claimed the ICIG had no part in changing the rule....and were immediately proven to be either ignorant or a liar. (The 'jury' is still out.).

Losers and snowflakes always want to attack the source of something they don't like instead of posting evidence / anything that proves what is being reported is false. They like to make false accusations - hit and run.

Feel free to post evidence to the contrary about the IC IG....right after you post the link to the law that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity....otherwise, return to 'timeout'.

I already did. You could have read the ICIG statement yourself but apparently that’s asking too much. I read the ICIG statement and quoted the relevant portions which say they updated the confusing language of the whistleblower forms to reflect the law. There was no rule change.

You haven’t proven anything other than your unwillingness to let the Gateway Pundit do your thinking for you. Ignore the text of the article and just read the original source, the statement from the ICIG.

The fact is that he had second hand and third hand knowledge and was coached by the party whose MO since day one was to "impeach that mother******".

The other fact is that his report has been confirmed as accurate.

Womp whomp

No, there was no evidence. More hearsay and emotion.

 

[easyt65]

I already did.

BS. I posted the link to where it was reported the IC IG admitted to having a hand in expediting the non-whistle blower complaint - that had been dismissed / rejected by the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ for being nothing - hearsay.

The IC IG's job is not to override or attempt to do the DOJ's job. This Deep State Intel Community Cl;own is another Trump-hater who believes he knows / knew better and it was his jib / destiny to help 'save' the country from the most successful President in decades.

Thanks for playing...

 

[colfax_m]

The rules are a matter of debate. But you missed the larger point that it wasn’t Congress who labeled him a whistleblower.

No I didn't. This dude showed up on schiffs front door and was coached. End. Of. Story.

Why would someone who pretends to be not easily duped....

...keep embarrassing yourself the way you do? It truly beats the hell out of me why you want to keep doing this to yourself.

The exact law has been posted, lil' proven ignorant / ;lying snowflake - feel free to post the law Schiff claims exists that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity. DragonLady claimed it exists, yet when challenged she disappeared. Your turn.

You claimed the ICIG had no part in changing the rule....and were immediately proven to be either ignorant or a liar. (The 'jury' is still out.).

Losers and snowflakes always want to attack the source of something they don't like instead of posting evidence / anything that proves what is being reported is false. They like to make false accusations - hit and run.

Feel free to post evidence to the contrary about the IC IG....right after you post the link to the law that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity....otherwise, return to 'timeout'.

I already did. You could have read the ICIG statement yourself but apparently that’s asking too much. I read the ICIG statement and quoted the relevant portions which say they updated the confusing language of the whistleblower forms to reflect the law. There was no rule change.

You haven’t proven anything other than your unwillingness to let the Gateway Pundit do your thinking for you. Ignore the text of the article and just read the original source, the statement from the ICIG.

The fact is that he had second hand and third hand knowledge and was coached by the party whose MO since day one was to "impeach that mother******".

The other fact is that his report has been confirmed as accurate.

Womp whomp

No, there was no evidence. More hearsay and emotion.

Just the transcript of the phone call with Zelensky is enough to warrant an investigation.

President’s asking for criminal investigations into their political opponents used to be considered a no-no.

 

[colfax_m]

I already did.

BS. I posted the link to where it was reported the IC IG admitted to having a hand in expediting the non-whistle blower complaint - that had been dismissed / rejected by the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ for being nothing - hearsay.

The IC IG's job is not to override or attempt to do the DOJ's job. This Deep State Intel Community Cl;own is another Trump-hater who believes he knows / knew better and it was his jib / destiny to help 'save' the country from the most successful President in decades.

Thanks for playing...

The ICIG didn’t override the DoJ. The DoJ didn’t dismiss it because it was hearsay. The ICIG didn’t change any rules. You’re now rewriting history.

Your links are to a bunch of liars with zero credibility who link to documents that don’t corroborate what they’re saying because they assume their readers are too stupid and lazy to actually think for themselves. Do you think everyone is so stupid as to believe this nonsense?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No I didn't. This dude showed up on schiffs front door and was coached. End. Of. Story.

...keep embarrassing yourself the way you do? It truly beats the hell out of me why you want to keep doing this to yourself.

The exact law has been posted, lil' proven ignorant / ;lying snowflake - feel free to post the law Schiff claims exists that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity. DragonLady claimed it exists, yet when challenged she disappeared. Your turn.

You claimed the ICIG had no part in changing the rule....and were immediately proven to be either ignorant or a liar. (The 'jury' is still out.).

Losers and snowflakes always want to attack the source of something they don't like instead of posting evidence / anything that proves what is being reported is false. They like to make false accusations - hit and run.

Feel free to post evidence to the contrary about the IC IG....right after you post the link to the law that affords his non-qualifying 'whistle blower' anonymity and immunity....otherwise, return to 'timeout'.

I already did. You could have read the ICIG statement yourself but apparently that’s asking too much. I read the ICIG statement and quoted the relevant portions which say they updated the confusing language of the whistleblower forms to reflect the law. There was no rule change.

You haven’t proven anything other than your unwillingness to let the Gateway Pundit do your thinking for you. Ignore the text of the article and just read the original source, the statement from the ICIG.

The fact is that he had second hand and third hand knowledge and was coached by the party whose MO since day one was to "impeach that mother******".

The other fact is that his report has been confirmed as accurate.

Womp whomp

No, there was no evidence. More hearsay and emotion.

Just the transcript of the phone call with Zelensky is enough to warrant an investigation.

President’s asking for criminal investigations into their political opponents used to be considered a no-no.

Well they did and there was nothing on it. No quid pro quo, nada.

 

[colfax_m]

I already did. You could have read the ICIG statement yourself but apparently that’s asking too much. I read the ICIG statement and quoted the relevant portions which say they updated the confusing language of the whistleblower forms to reflect the law. There was no rule change.

You haven’t proven anything other than your unwillingness to let the Gateway Pundit do your thinking for you. Ignore the text of the article and just read the original source, the statement from the ICIG.

The fact is that he had second hand and third hand knowledge and was coached by the party whose MO since day one was to "impeach that mother******".

The other fact is that his report has been confirmed as accurate.

Womp whomp

No, there was no evidence. More hearsay and emotion.

Just the transcript of the phone call with Zelensky is enough to warrant an investigation.

President’s asking for criminal investigations into their political opponents used to be considered a no-no.

Well they did and there was nothing on it. No quid pro quo, nada.

So you’re okay with Presidents deciding to investigate their political opponents? That’s cool with you?

 

[easyt65]

I already did.

BS. I posted the link to where it was reported the IC IG admitted to having a hand in expediting the non-whistle blower complaint - that had been dismissed / rejected by the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ for being nothing - hearsay.

The IC IG's job is not to override or attempt to do the DOJ's job. This Deep State Intel Community Cl;own is another Trump-hater who believes he knows / knew better and it was his jib / destiny to help 'save' the country from the most successful President in decades.

Thanks for playing...

The ICIG didn’t override the DoJ. The DoJ didn’t dismiss it because it was hearsay. The ICIG didn’t change any rules. You’re now rewriting history.

Your links are to a bunch of liars with zero credibility who link to documents that don’t corroborate what they’re saying because they assume their readers are too stupid and lazy to actually think for themselves. Do you think everyone is so stupid as to believe this nonsense?

I'm sorry - you continue to spew unsubstantiated BS opinion...which got you thoroughly SPANKED earlier...while dodging the challenge to post the links to the laws you and DL claim exist. Until you do you have no credibility - not worth reading.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The fact is that he had second hand and third hand knowledge and was coached by the party whose MO since day one was to "impeach that mother******".

The other fact is that his report has been confirmed as accurate.

Womp whomp

No, there was no evidence. More hearsay and emotion.

Just the transcript of the phone call with Zelensky is enough to warrant an investigation.

President’s asking for criminal investigations into their political opponents used to be considered a no-no.

Well they did and there was nothing on it. No quid pro quo, nada.

So you’re okay with Presidents deciding to investigate their political opponents? That’s cool with you?

O set the precedent.

 

[easyt65]

So you’re okay with Presidents deciding to investigate their political opponents? That’s cool with you?

Obviously you are 'cool' with giving military aid / weapons to nations proven to have interfered in our elections without any idea of the details and without assurance that it is not still happening....

The day before Schiff's circus started he declared he was going to protect the Bidens and the Dems who collaborated with the former corrupt Ukrainian officials who helped interfere in the election....and you continue to defend him / them.

Good lil; snowflake.

 

[g5000]

Trump has called the whistleblower a traitor who should be shot. And his ever-obedient followers have taken up the cry for blood.

That's witness intimidation, pure and simple.