Trump outs Whistleblower!

[TNHarley]

Trump once again violated the law.

What law are you referring to?

Divulging the name of the name of a whistleblower as retaliation is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act as well as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.. And anyone who doesn't think for an instance that Trump did not know what he was doing, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Umm it was a retweeted article...

 

[joaquinmiller]

Trump once again violated the law.

What law are you referring to?

Divulging the name of the name of a whistleblower as retaliation is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act as well as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.. And anyone who doesn't think for an instance that Trump did not know what he was doing, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Umm it was a retweeted article...

People aren't responsible for what they re-tweet?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Trump once again violated the law.

What law are you referring to?

Divulging the name of the name of a whistleblower as retaliation is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act as well as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.. And anyone who doesn't think for an instance that Trump did not know what he was doing, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Umm it was a retweeted article...

People aren't responsible for what they re-tweet?

Nope. Tweets are just that. Free speech. And certainly speech that doesn't break any laws is protected speech. Which is what Trump had.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I've heard people talking about this and I'm starting to believe there is no, and never was, a whistle blower.

Whistleblow THIS: There is No Whistleblower!

I think this person never existed and was simply an "anonymous excuse" to start yet another investigation into Trump. The left had to use some method that they could keep anonymous after the whole Meuller debacle. It makes more sense now than ever.

What an idiot.

CNN: “The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.”

This means this person is not a whistle blower. You can't be a hear say whistle blower LOL ******* moron.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified under oath:

Maguire also agreed with Texas Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro's assertion that the whistleblower's complaint is "remarkably consistent" with the transcript released by the Trump administration.


"I would say that the whistleblower's complaint is in alignment with what was released by the president yesterday," Maguire said.


Maguire also told GOP Congressman Will Hurd of Texas that he has a lot of work to reassure the intelligence community that he's "absolutely committed" to the whistleblower program.

4 Things We Learned From Maguire's Testimony

Of course, he's only the DNI. He can't possibly be as credible as your wingnut opinionator from Townhall. Goofball.

Good. Still hearsay without direct knowledge and there is no such thing as a hearsay whistle blower.

 

[joaquinmiller]

I've heard people talking about this and I'm starting to believe there is no, and never was, a whistle blower.

Whistleblow THIS: There is No Whistleblower!

I think this person never existed and was simply an "anonymous excuse" to start yet another investigation into Trump. The left had to use some method that they could keep anonymous after the whole Meuller debacle. It makes more sense now than ever.

What an idiot.

CNN: “The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.”

This means this person is not a whistle blower. You can't be a hear say whistle blower LOL ******* moron.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified under oath:

Maguire also agreed with Texas Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro's assertion that the whistleblower's complaint is "remarkably consistent" with the transcript released by the Trump administration.


"I would say that the whistleblower's complaint is in alignment with what was released by the president yesterday," Maguire said.


Maguire also told GOP Congressman Will Hurd of Texas that he has a lot of work to reassure the intelligence community that he's "absolutely committed" to the whistleblower program.

4 Things We Learned From Maguire's Testimony

Of course, he's only the DNI. He can't possibly be as credible as your wingnut opinionator from Townhall. Goofball.

Good. Still hearsay without direct knowledge and there is no such thing as a hearsay whistle blower.

You're just saying stupid shit.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I've heard people talking about this and I'm starting to believe there is no, and never was, a whistle blower.

Whistleblow THIS: There is No Whistleblower!

I think this person never existed and was simply an "anonymous excuse" to start yet another investigation into Trump. The left had to use some method that they could keep anonymous after the whole Meuller debacle. It makes more sense now than ever.

What an idiot.

CNN: “The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.”

This means this person is not a whistle blower. You can't be a hear say whistle blower LOL ******* moron.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified under oath:

Maguire also agreed with Texas Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro's assertion that the whistleblower's complaint is "remarkably consistent" with the transcript released by the Trump administration.


"I would say that the whistleblower's complaint is in alignment with what was released by the president yesterday," Maguire said.


Maguire also told GOP Congressman Will Hurd of Texas that he has a lot of work to reassure the intelligence community that he's "absolutely committed" to the whistleblower program.

4 Things We Learned From Maguire's Testimony

Of course, he's only the DNI. He can't possibly be as credible as your wingnut opinionator from Townhall. Goofball.

Good. Still hearsay without direct knowledge and there is no such thing as a hearsay whistle blower.

You're just saying stupid shit.

I know you are. No such thing as a hearsay whistleblower. No matter how many personal insults you sling. Doesn't change the ugly facts.

Hearsay evidence isn't enough to give someone a traffic ticket but your stupid ass wants to impeach a president based on it? AND WHO IS THE DUMB **** NOW?

 

[skye]

I love that President Trump outs the Deep State scum whislteblower....

Bless you Mr President!

 

[WEATHER53]

If I stated that whistleblower John Doe is John Doe then tell law enforcement to come and get me. Democrats are children, driven by wishful childish emotions

 

[joaquinmiller]

What an idiot.

CNN: “The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.”

This means this person is not a whistle blower. You can't be a hear say whistle blower LOL ******* moron.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified under oath:

Maguire also agreed with Texas Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro's assertion that the whistleblower's complaint is "remarkably consistent" with the transcript released by the Trump administration.


"I would say that the whistleblower's complaint is in alignment with what was released by the president yesterday," Maguire said.


Maguire also told GOP Congressman Will Hurd of Texas that he has a lot of work to reassure the intelligence community that he's "absolutely committed" to the whistleblower program.

4 Things We Learned From Maguire's Testimony

Of course, he's only the DNI. He can't possibly be as credible as your wingnut opinionator from Townhall. Goofball.

Good. Still hearsay without direct knowledge and there is no such thing as a hearsay whistle blower.

You're just saying stupid shit.

I know you are. No such thing as a hearsay whistleblower. No matter how many personal insults you sling. Doesn't change the ugly facts.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump's fiction about whistleblower complaint



THE FACTS: They’re wrong on multiple fronts. There was nothing improper in the submission of the whistleblower complaint. No whistleblower law was changed and nothing under that law requires the complaints to have first-hand information. The IG’s office also said Monday that it had determined that the whistleblower did have some first-hand, “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct.”

It’s not true that the whistleblower could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” the IG said.

Intelligence community workers have long been able to blow the whistle based on second-hand or hearsay information. The law only requires federal workers to have a “reasonable belief” of misconduct in order to file a complaint, according to Debra D’Agostino, a federal employment lawyer.

In this case, the whistleblower flagged in part Trump’s July call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a typed, nine-page document addressed to the House Intelligence Committee. The IG said that while the whistleblower was not a direct witness to the call, the IG separately obtained other information during its preliminary review that supported the allegations to deem them credible.

 

[skye]

Deep State liars scum Pedocrats "whistle blowers" scum

will always be outed

there is a new sheriff in town.

 

[TNHarley]

Trump once again violated the law.

What law are you referring to?

Divulging the name of the name of a whistleblower as retaliation is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act as well as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.. And anyone who doesn't think for an instance that Trump did not know what he was doing, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Umm it was a retweeted article...

People aren't responsible for what they re-tweet?

Lol really? A retweeted article?
Come on dude

 

[airplanemechanic]

CNN: “The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.”

This means this person is not a whistle blower. You can't be a hear say whistle blower LOL ******* moron.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified under oath:

Maguire also agreed with Texas Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro's assertion that the whistleblower's complaint is "remarkably consistent" with the transcript released by the Trump administration.


"I would say that the whistleblower's complaint is in alignment with what was released by the president yesterday," Maguire said.


Maguire also told GOP Congressman Will Hurd of Texas that he has a lot of work to reassure the intelligence community that he's "absolutely committed" to the whistleblower program.

4 Things We Learned From Maguire's Testimony

Of course, he's only the DNI. He can't possibly be as credible as your wingnut opinionator from Townhall. Goofball.

Good. Still hearsay without direct knowledge and there is no such thing as a hearsay whistle blower.

You're just saying stupid shit.

I know you are. No such thing as a hearsay whistleblower. No matter how many personal insults you sling. Doesn't change the ugly facts.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump's fiction about whistleblower complaint



THE FACTS: They’re wrong on multiple fronts. There was nothing improper in the submission of the whistleblower complaint. No whistleblower law was changed and nothing under that law requires the complaints to have first-hand information. The IG’s office also said Monday that it had determined that the whistleblower did have some first-hand, “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct.”

It’s not true that the whistleblower could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” the IG said.

Intelligence community workers have long been able to blow the whistle based on second-hand or hearsay information. The law only requires federal workers to have a “reasonable belief” of misconduct in order to file a complaint, according to Debra D’Agostino, a federal employment lawyer.

In this case, the whistleblower flagged in part Trump’s July call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a typed, nine-page document addressed to the House Intelligence Committee. The IG said that while the whistleblower was not a direct witness to the call, the IG separately obtained other information during its preliminary review that supported the allegations to deem them credible.

So who is the whistle blower? Without being able to cross examine them, there is no way to determine their level of credibility or if they even exist.

Throw it out in the senate.

/end impeachment.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Trump once again violated the law.

What law are you referring to?

Divulging the name of the name of a whistleblower as retaliation is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act as well as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.. And anyone who doesn't think for an instance that Trump did not know what he was doing, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Umm it was a retweeted article...

People aren't responsible for what they re-tweet?

Lol really? A retweeted article?
Come on dude

That's not an answer. Are people responsible for their re-tweets?

'Oh, that's not my lie. That's just a lie I retweeted to 60 million people. Dude! Honestly.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified under oath:

Maguire also agreed with Texas Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro's assertion that the whistleblower's complaint is "remarkably consistent" with the transcript released by the Trump administration.


"I would say that the whistleblower's complaint is in alignment with what was released by the president yesterday," Maguire said.


Maguire also told GOP Congressman Will Hurd of Texas that he has a lot of work to reassure the intelligence community that he's "absolutely committed" to the whistleblower program.

4 Things We Learned From Maguire's Testimony

Of course, he's only the DNI. He can't possibly be as credible as your wingnut opinionator from Townhall. Goofball.

Good. Still hearsay without direct knowledge and there is no such thing as a hearsay whistle blower.

You're just saying stupid shit.

I know you are. No such thing as a hearsay whistleblower. No matter how many personal insults you sling. Doesn't change the ugly facts.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump's fiction about whistleblower complaint



THE FACTS: They’re wrong on multiple fronts. There was nothing improper in the submission of the whistleblower complaint. No whistleblower law was changed and nothing under that law requires the complaints to have first-hand information. The IG’s office also said Monday that it had determined that the whistleblower did have some first-hand, “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct.”

It’s not true that the whistleblower could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” the IG said.

Intelligence community workers have long been able to blow the whistle based on second-hand or hearsay information. The law only requires federal workers to have a “reasonable belief” of misconduct in order to file a complaint, according to Debra D’Agostino, a federal employment lawyer.

In this case, the whistleblower flagged in part Trump’s July call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a typed, nine-page document addressed to the House Intelligence Committee. The IG said that while the whistleblower was not a direct witness to the call, the IG separately obtained other information during its preliminary review that supported the allegations to deem them credible.

So who is the whistle blower? Without being able to cross examine them, there is no way to determine their level of credibility or if they even exist.

Throw it out in the senate.

/end impeachment.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified under oath:

Maguire also agreed with Texas Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro's assertion that the whistleblower's complaint is "remarkably consistent" with the transcript released by the Trump administration.

"I would say that the whistleblower's complaint is in alignment with what was released by the president yesterday," Maguire said.

That was sworn testimony. Any kumquat can compare the WB complaint and the quasi-transcript and see it was ******* credible.

 

[airplanemechanic]

What law are you referring to?

Divulging the name of the name of a whistleblower as retaliation is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act as well as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.. And anyone who doesn't think for an instance that Trump did not know what he was doing, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Umm it was a retweeted article...

People aren't responsible for what they re-tweet?

Lol really? A retweeted article?
Come on dude

That's not an answer. Are people responsible for their re-tweets?

'Oh, that's not my lie. That's just a lie I retweeted to 60 million people. Dude! Honestly.

Are You Liable for Tweeting and/or Retweeting an Offensive Tweet?

I was wrong before. You CANNOT be sued for a re-tweet, even if its libel or slander.

Therefore, if you retweet a libelous statement in the United States, you or the company you work for may be protected from defamation liability based on the wording in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”. Simply put, this means you cannot be sued for something you retweet, even if the original tweet is libelous so long as the libelous content was created by a third party.

So no user of an interactive computer service (twitter) can be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. That means you are clear to re-tweet anything you want.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Divulging the name of the name of a whistleblower as retaliation is a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act as well as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.. And anyone who doesn't think for an instance that Trump did not know what he was doing, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Umm it was a retweeted article...

People aren't responsible for what they re-tweet?

Lol really? A retweeted article?
Come on dude

That's not an answer. Are people responsible for their re-tweets?

'Oh, that's not my lie. That's just a lie I retweeted to 60 million people. Dude! Honestly.

Are You Liable for Tweeting and/or Retweeting an Offensive Tweet?

You are only liable if it's false and if its a crime. Also being your opinion is a defense in every instance. Retweeting is none of that.

/end thread

Personal responsibility and legal liability aren't the same thing.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Umm it was a retweeted article...

People aren't responsible for what they re-tweet?

Lol really? A retweeted article?
Come on dude

That's not an answer. Are people responsible for their re-tweets?

'Oh, that's not my lie. That's just a lie I retweeted to 60 million people. Dude! Honestly.

Are You Liable for Tweeting and/or Retweeting an Offensive Tweet?

You are only liable if it's false and if its a crime. Also being your opinion is a defense in every instance. Retweeting is none of that.

/end thread

Personal responsibility and legal liability aren't the same thing.

So are you admitting Trump did nothing wrong? Please see my post, it's been updated. You cannot be sued (or be in the wrong) for a re-tweet. Sorry.

Trump did nothing wrong.

 

[joaquinmiller]

People aren't responsible for what they re-tweet?

Lol really? A retweeted article?
Come on dude

That's not an answer. Are people responsible for their re-tweets?

'Oh, that's not my lie. That's just a lie I retweeted to 60 million people. Dude! Honestly.

Are You Liable for Tweeting and/or Retweeting an Offensive Tweet?

You are only liable if it's false and if its a crime. Also being your opinion is a defense in every instance. Retweeting is none of that.

/end thread

Personal responsibility and legal liability aren't the same thing.

So are you admitting Trump did nothing wrong? Please see my post, it's been updated. You cannot be sued (or be in the wrong) for a re-tweet. Sorry.

Trump did nothing wrong.

I assume the parenthetical - (or be in the wrong) - was your addition. As far as I know, it wasn't illegal. Is that the only standard you apply to a President?

 

[CWayne]

Hysterical......

Trump Retweets Article Which Names Alleged Whistleblower

I'm laughing.....does the President know how to explode heads or what?

Top story on DRUDGE right now....now a liberal website btw

explode heads AND break laws

He broke no law.

 

[CWayne]

Trump once again violated the law. Because Trumpers think Trump is above the law or that the law does not apply to Trump they laugh. It is a sorry state of affairs. Pelosi's strategy is right. Hang tight to the Impeachment articles because more are sure to follow. Trump can't help but to trample on the law.

How did he violate the law?