Whistleblower Act needs teeth

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Anonymity is the only way to provide immunity.

Really?


That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Anonymity actually PREVENTS immunity.

You know what immunity means, right?

.

 

[toobfreak]

The Whistleblower Protection Act does not protect the whistleblower's identity from disclosure. It merely protects the whistleblower from retaliatory personnel action against the employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant taken or threatened by the employing federal agency.

It should protect their identity. If it doesnt then people will be reluctant to come forward. Who benefits from that ?

THE WRONGLY ACCUSED

You are treating this issue in a purely partisan manner. Try and see it in a wider context.

What's partisan about quoting the law. If you are guaranteed total anonymity then anyone can accuse you of anything and you have little chance to defend yourself. You cannot face your accuser, you don't know who, what, how, where or when. All you have is a charge. A perfect invitation to hurt people you don't like.

There are whistleblowers all the time in companies and agencies and none of them get total anonymity.

I don't want to live in the society of fear and snitches your approach would create.

A whistleblower doesnt make the decision to prosecute. They just provide the info for the authorities to investigate and then charge or not.
People act in anonymity all the time. The girl who witnesses a mob hit is unlikely to give her name when she phones the cops. Its up to them to make the case.

Irrelevant. There needs to be balance to prevent abuse. If you call the cops to phone in a tip on a mobster, you don't stay anonymous to the police. And ultimately not to the mob either. It would be nice to live in your soft, comfortable dream world Tommy, but the simple truth is that you have a right to face your accuser, otherwise, people can just make up shit against anyone they don't like.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

The whistleblower’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday that efforts to identify their client “will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm” and will deter future whistleblowers.

Notably, the 2014 law ultimately puts the president in charge of enforcing the whistleblower protections.

A whistleblower act that does not protect the whistleblower is a meaningless piece of paper. A whistleblower is somebody who performs a public service. They do not act as judge and jury. They raise concerns and pass them on to senior people who then make a decision. In which case their identity being known is not necessarily in the public interest.

I can understand Trumps curiosity about this, he sees it as a betrayal, but as soon as the complaint is lodged the whistleblowers work is done.

But the US is a hugely violent and partisan society. Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential. If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers. That can not be a good thing for anybody apart from the crooks.

The Whistleblower Act needs to be strengthened to protect whistleblowers and ultimately the interests of the people.

What we likely have here is an agent from the Democrat cabal who's only mission was to try and undermine Trump's presidency. As for safety, the commie members of the House are more at risk of harm or death than this non-whistleblower. And if the rat (not whistleblower) is actually scared, too Fn bad. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Forget about Trump. The American people have the absolute right to see all cards on the table face up. Our elected President is under attack, and we need to find out who the attacker was an his or her motives. We can't allow people in the White House who are working against the President instead of for the American public. We have a right to know.

Now imagine a world where a whistleblower is thinking about grassing up a Dem President or official.Would you want them to be scared to come forward ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It should protect their identity. If it doesnt then people will be reluctant to come forward. Who benefits from that ?

THE WRONGLY ACCUSED

You are treating this issue in a purely partisan manner. Try and see it in a wider context.

What's partisan about quoting the law. If you are guaranteed total anonymity then anyone can accuse you of anything and you have little chance to defend yourself. You cannot face your accuser, you don't know who, what, how, where or when. All you have is a charge. A perfect invitation to hurt people you don't like.

There are whistleblowers all the time in companies and agencies and none of them get total anonymity.

I don't want to live in the society of fear and snitches your approach would create.

A whistleblower doesnt make the decision to prosecute. They just provide the info for the authorities to investigate and then charge or not.
People act in anonymity all the time. The girl who witnesses a mob hit is unlikely to give her name when she phones the cops. Its up to them to make the case.

Irrelevant. There needs to be balance to prevent abuse. If you call the cops to phone in a tip on a mobster, you don't stay anonymous to the police. And ultimately not to the mob either. It would be nice to live in your soft, comfortable dream world Tommy, but the simple truth is that you have a right to face your accuser, otherwise, people can just make up shit against anyone they don't like.

Not without the evidence to back it up. Giving a tip is just the start and a large percentage end in the bin.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

The whistleblower’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday that efforts to identify their client “will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm” and will deter future whistleblowers.

Notably, the 2014 law ultimately puts the president in charge of enforcing the whistleblower protections.

A whistleblower act that does not protect the whistleblower is a meaningless piece of paper. A whistleblower is somebody who performs a public service. They do not act as judge and jury. They raise concerns and pass them on to senior people who then make a decision. In which case their identity being known is not necessarily in the public interest.

I can understand Trumps curiosity about this, he sees it as a betrayal, but as soon as the complaint is lodged the whistleblowers work is done.

But the US is a hugely violent and partisan society. Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential. If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers. That can not be a good thing for anybody apart from the crooks.

The Whistleblower Act needs to be strengthened to protect whistleblowers and ultimately the interests of the people.

What we likely have here is an agent from the Democrat cabal who's only mission was to try and undermine Trump's presidency. As for safety, the commie members of the House are more at risk of harm or death than this non-whistleblower. And if the rat (not whistleblower) is actually scared, too Fn bad. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Forget about Trump. The American people have the absolute right to see all cards on the table face up. Our elected President is under attack, and we need to find out who the attacker was an his or her motives. We can't allow people in the White House who are working against the President instead of for the American public. We have a right to know.

Now imagine a world where a whistleblower is thinking about grassing up a Dem President or official.Would you want them to be scared to come forward ?

First of all, there is no whistleblower by definition.

The 'Whistleblower' Probably Isn't

Secondly, I wouldn't want people in our government trying to undo an election of the American people, which is what this is about, and has been about since the commies took leadership of the House. Thirdly, if somebody is going to make such a charge, it should be legitimate, not this nonsense of "oh, I think Trump meant this" and then impeach him on it.

This is the first non-criminal, anonymous, weakest case of impeachment in our history. If our founders could come back today to see what is happening, they would rewrite the Constitution and it would be 100 pages long, to include big color pictures so that even Democrats could understand it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

The whistleblower’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday that efforts to identify their client “will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm” and will deter future whistleblowers.

Notably, the 2014 law ultimately puts the president in charge of enforcing the whistleblower protections.

A whistleblower act that does not protect the whistleblower is a meaningless piece of paper. A whistleblower is somebody who performs a public service. They do not act as judge and jury. They raise concerns and pass them on to senior people who then make a decision. In which case their identity being known is not necessarily in the public interest.

I can understand Trumps curiosity about this, he sees it as a betrayal, but as soon as the complaint is lodged the whistleblowers work is done.

But the US is a hugely violent and partisan society. Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential. If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers. That can not be a good thing for anybody apart from the crooks.

The Whistleblower Act needs to be strengthened to protect whistleblowers and ultimately the interests of the people.

Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

No.

Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential.

We have the right to face our accusers.

If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers.

For taking down a president, he can go into witness protection.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

The whistleblower’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday that efforts to identify their client “will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm” and will deter future whistleblowers.

Notably, the 2014 law ultimately puts the president in charge of enforcing the whistleblower protections.

A whistleblower act that does not protect the whistleblower is a meaningless piece of paper. A whistleblower is somebody who performs a public service. They do not act as judge and jury. They raise concerns and pass them on to senior people who then make a decision. In which case their identity being known is not necessarily in the public interest.

I can understand Trumps curiosity about this, he sees it as a betrayal, but as soon as the complaint is lodged the whistleblowers work is done.

But the US is a hugely violent and partisan society. Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential. If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers. That can not be a good thing for anybody apart from the crooks.

The Whistleblower Act needs to be strengthened to protect whistleblowers and ultimately the interests of the people.

Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

No.

Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential.

We have the right to face our accusers.

If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers.

For taking down a president, he can go into witness protection.

With the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, and Nadler protecting him, they are already under the witless protection program.

 

[toobfreak]

THE WRONGLY ACCUSED

You are treating this issue in a purely partisan manner. Try and see it in a wider context.

What's partisan about quoting the law. If you are guaranteed total anonymity then anyone can accuse you of anything and you have little chance to defend yourself. You cannot face your accuser, you don't know who, what, how, where or when. All you have is a charge. A perfect invitation to hurt people you don't like.

There are whistleblowers all the time in companies and agencies and none of them get total anonymity.

I don't want to live in the society of fear and snitches your approach would create.

A whistleblower doesnt make the decision to prosecute. They just provide the info for the authorities to investigate and then charge or not.
People act in anonymity all the time. The girl who witnesses a mob hit is unlikely to give her name when she phones the cops. Its up to them to make the case.

Irrelevant. There needs to be balance to prevent abuse. If you call the cops to phone in a tip on a mobster, you don't stay anonymous to the police. And ultimately not to the mob either. It would be nice to live in your soft, comfortable dream world Tommy, but the simple truth is that you have a right to face your accuser, otherwise, people can just make up shit against anyone they don't like.

Not without the evidence to back it up. Giving a tip is just the start and a large percentage end in the bin.

So you can be accused of being heard saying xyz over the phone by persons ABC (unknown), and you don't know who it is, so can't say whether they were really even there to hear anything or not, only told to you by someone with EVERY DESIRE to see you prosecuted, ON THEIR WORD ALONE.

No cross-examination, no test of the claim. No way to refute the "word" of the whistleblower. Sound familiar Tommy? Of course not. I didn't think you'd ever get it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

The whistleblower’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday that efforts to identify their client “will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm” and will deter future whistleblowers.

Notably, the 2014 law ultimately puts the president in charge of enforcing the whistleblower protections.

A whistleblower act that does not protect the whistleblower is a meaningless piece of paper. A whistleblower is somebody who performs a public service. They do not act as judge and jury. They raise concerns and pass them on to senior people who then make a decision. In which case their identity being known is not necessarily in the public interest.

I can understand Trumps curiosity about this, he sees it as a betrayal, but as soon as the complaint is lodged the whistleblowers work is done.

But the US is a hugely violent and partisan society. Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential. If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers. That can not be a good thing for anybody apart from the crooks.

The Whistleblower Act needs to be strengthened to protect whistleblowers and ultimately the interests of the people.

What we likely have here is an agent from the Democrat cabal who's only mission was to try and undermine Trump's presidency. As for safety, the commie members of the House are more at risk of harm or death than this non-whistleblower. And if the rat (not whistleblower) is actually scared, too Fn bad. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Forget about Trump. The American people have the absolute right to see all cards on the table face up. Our elected President is under attack, and we need to find out who the attacker was an his or her motives. We can't allow people in the White House who are working against the President instead of for the American public. We have a right to know.

Now imagine a world where a whistleblower is thinking about grassing up a Dem President or official.Would you want them to be scared to come forward ?

First of all, there is no whistleblower by definition.

The 'Whistleblower' Probably Isn't

Secondly, I wouldn't want people in our government trying to undo an election of the American people, which is what this is about, and has been about since the commies took leadership of the House. Thirdly, if somebody is going to make such a charge, it should be legitimate, not this nonsense of "oh, I think Trump meant this" and then impeach him on it.

This is the first non-criminal, anonymous, weakest case of impeachment in our history. If our founders could come back today to see what is happening, they would rewrite the Constitution and it would be 100 pages long, to include big color pictures so that even Democrats could understand it.

The decision to charge is not for the whistleblower. They are just flagging up an issue. Are you saying that if President Sanders did an illegal deal, or seemingly illegal, with Cuba you would not want to know about it ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

The whistleblower’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday that efforts to identify their client “will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm” and will deter future whistleblowers.

Notably, the 2014 law ultimately puts the president in charge of enforcing the whistleblower protections.

A whistleblower act that does not protect the whistleblower is a meaningless piece of paper. A whistleblower is somebody who performs a public service. They do not act as judge and jury. They raise concerns and pass them on to senior people who then make a decision. In which case their identity being known is not necessarily in the public interest.

I can understand Trumps curiosity about this, he sees it as a betrayal, but as soon as the complaint is lodged the whistleblowers work is done.

But the US is a hugely violent and partisan society. Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential. If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers. That can not be a good thing for anybody apart from the crooks.

The Whistleblower Act needs to be strengthened to protect whistleblowers and ultimately the interests of the people.

The Whistleblower Protection Act does not protect the whistleblower's identity from disclosure. It merely protects the whistleblower from retaliatory personnel action against the employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant taken or threatened by the employing federal agency.

It should protect their identity. If it doesnt then people will be reluctant to come forward. Who benefits from that ?

It should protect their identity. If it doesnt then people will be reluctant to come forward.

If you're never exposed, what is the incentive for telling the truth?

Who benefits from that ?

Politically motivated liars.

 

[Polishprince]

Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

The whistleblower’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday that efforts to identify their client “will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm” and will deter future whistleblowers.

Notably, the 2014 law ultimately puts the president in charge of enforcing the whistleblower protections.

A whistleblower act that does not protect the whistleblower is a meaningless piece of paper. A whistleblower is somebody who performs a public service. They do not act as judge and jury. They raise concerns and pass them on to senior people who then make a decision. In which case their identity being known is not necessarily in the public interest.

I can understand Trumps curiosity about this, he sees it as a betrayal, but as soon as the complaint is lodged the whistleblowers work is done.

But the US is a hugely violent and partisan society. Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential. If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers. That can not be a good thing for anybody apart from the crooks.

The Whistleblower Act needs to be strengthened to protect whistleblowers and ultimately the interests of the people.

The so-called "whistleblower" isn't a "whistleblower" at all. Just a partisan gossip repeating tales to enemies like Adam Schiff.

It isn't the position of any executive branch employees to spy on the President

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You are treating this issue in a purely partisan manner. Try and see it in a wider context.

What's partisan about quoting the law. If you are guaranteed total anonymity then anyone can accuse you of anything and you have little chance to defend yourself. You cannot face your accuser, you don't know who, what, how, where or when. All you have is a charge. A perfect invitation to hurt people you don't like.

There are whistleblowers all the time in companies and agencies and none of them get total anonymity.

I don't want to live in the society of fear and snitches your approach would create.

A whistleblower doesnt make the decision to prosecute. They just provide the info for the authorities to investigate and then charge or not.
People act in anonymity all the time. The girl who witnesses a mob hit is unlikely to give her name when she phones the cops. Its up to them to make the case.

Irrelevant. There needs to be balance to prevent abuse. If you call the cops to phone in a tip on a mobster, you don't stay anonymous to the police. And ultimately not to the mob either. It would be nice to live in your soft, comfortable dream world Tommy, but the simple truth is that you have a right to face your accuser, otherwise, people can just make up shit against anyone they don't like.

Not without the evidence to back it up. Giving a tip is just the start and a large percentage end in the bin.

So you can be accused of being heard saying xyz over the phone by persons ABC (unknown), and you don't know who it is, so can't say whether they were really even there to hear anything or not, only told to you by someone with EVERY DESIRE to see you prosecuted, ON THEIR WORD ALONE.

No cross-examination, no test of the claim. No way to refute the "word" of the whistleblower. Sound familiar Tommy? Of course not. I didn't think you'd ever get it.

It doesnt matter if they were there or not. They raised an issue and their info proved to be true. That is the end of their involvement. The transcripts (redacted) are the basis for the prosecution not the report of the conversation.

 

[Polishprince]

Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

The whistleblower’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday that efforts to identify their client “will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm” and will deter future whistleblowers.

Notably, the 2014 law ultimately puts the president in charge of enforcing the whistleblower protections.

A whistleblower act that does not protect the whistleblower is a meaningless piece of paper. A whistleblower is somebody who performs a public service. They do not act as judge and jury. They raise concerns and pass them on to senior people who then make a decision. In which case their identity being known is not necessarily in the public interest.

I can understand Trumps curiosity about this, he sees it as a betrayal, but as soon as the complaint is lodged the whistleblowers work is done.

But the US is a hugely violent and partisan society. Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential. If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers. That can not be a good thing for anybody apart from the crooks.

The Whistleblower Act needs to be strengthened to protect whistleblowers and ultimately the interests of the people.

What we likely have here is an agent from the Democrat cabal who's only mission was to try and undermine Trump's presidency. As for safety, the commie members of the House are more at risk of harm or death than this non-whistleblower. And if the rat (not whistleblower) is actually scared, too Fn bad. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Forget about Trump. The American people have the absolute right to see all cards on the table face up. Our elected President is under attack, and we need to find out who the attacker was an his or her motives. We can't allow people in the White House who are working against the President instead of for the American public. We have a right to know.

Now imagine a world where a whistleblower is thinking about grassing up a Dem President or official.Would you want them to be scared to come forward ?

First of all, there is no whistleblower by definition.

The 'Whistleblower' Probably Isn't

Secondly, I wouldn't want people in our government trying to undo an election of the American people, which is what this is about, and has been about since the commies took leadership of the House. Thirdly, if somebody is going to make such a charge, it should be legitimate, not this nonsense of "oh, I think Trump meant this" and then impeach him on it.

This is the first non-criminal, anonymous, weakest case of impeachment in our history. If our founders could come back today to see what is happening, they would rewrite the Constitution and it would be 100 pages long, to include big color pictures so that even Democrats could understand it.

The decision to charge is not for the whistleblower. They are just flagging up an issue. Are you saying that if President Sanders did an illegal deal, or seemingly illegal, with Cuba you would not want to know about it ?

The Deep State is all leftist, that wouldn't happen. I would totally expect all of the Deep Staters as well as Media to grovel to Crazy Bernie or other leftist autocrat that would rise.

 

[kyzr]

1. This whole mess started with 2nd hand info which the IG should have found "NOT CREDIBLE" since the law requires direct knowledge.

2. The WB should not be allowed to blow on anyone above the DNI. The intent of the law is to prevent the intel agencies from pulling operation "Treadstones" or Crossfire Hurricanes.

3. The reason we want the WB to testify is to prove that he was a Brennan "deep state" CIA plant who worked with Schiff and his minions to write the report.

4. Everything goes to motive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

The whistleblower’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday that efforts to identify their client “will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm” and will deter future whistleblowers.

Notably, the 2014 law ultimately puts the president in charge of enforcing the whistleblower protections.

A whistleblower act that does not protect the whistleblower is a meaningless piece of paper. A whistleblower is somebody who performs a public service. They do not act as judge and jury. They raise concerns and pass them on to senior people who then make a decision. In which case their identity being known is not necessarily in the public interest.

I can understand Trumps curiosity about this, he sees it as a betrayal, but as soon as the complaint is lodged the whistleblowers work is done.

But the US is a hugely violent and partisan society. Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential. If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers. That can not be a good thing for anybody apart from the crooks.

The Whistleblower Act needs to be strengthened to protect whistleblowers and ultimately the interests of the people.

What we likely have here is an agent from the Democrat cabal who's only mission was to try and undermine Trump's presidency. As for safety, the commie members of the House are more at risk of harm or death than this non-whistleblower. And if the rat (not whistleblower) is actually scared, too Fn bad. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Forget about Trump. The American people have the absolute right to see all cards on the table face up. Our elected President is under attack, and we need to find out who the attacker was an his or her motives. We can't allow people in the White House who are working against the President instead of for the American public. We have a right to know.

Now imagine a world where a whistleblower is thinking about grassing up a Dem President or official.Would you want them to be scared to come forward ?

First of all, there is no whistleblower by definition.

The 'Whistleblower' Probably Isn't

Secondly, I wouldn't want people in our government trying to undo an election of the American people, which is what this is about, and has been about since the commies took leadership of the House. Thirdly, if somebody is going to make such a charge, it should be legitimate, not this nonsense of "oh, I think Trump meant this" and then impeach him on it.

This is the first non-criminal, anonymous, weakest case of impeachment in our history. If our founders could come back today to see what is happening, they would rewrite the Constitution and it would be 100 pages long, to include big color pictures so that even Democrats could understand it.

The decision to charge is not for the whistleblower. They are just flagging up an issue. Are you saying that if President Sanders did an illegal deal, or seemingly illegal, with Cuba you would not want to know about it ?

If he actually did it. But mind reading has never been a part of our politics or law until now. We have a President who was impeached over mind reading--not actual words. It clearly demonstrates this is not about actual wrongdoing, it has to do with people in the cabal working to undermine and attempt to remove a President from office for no good reason other than they hate him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Whistleblower Protection Act does not protect the whistleblower's identity from disclosure. It merely protects the whistleblower from retaliatory personnel action against the employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant taken or threatened by the employing federal agency.

It should protect their identity. If it doesnt then people will be reluctant to come forward. Who benefits from that ?

THE WRONGLY ACCUSED

You are treating this issue in a purely partisan manner. Try and see it in a wider context.

What's partisan about quoting the law. If you are guaranteed total anonymity then anyone can accuse you of anything and you have little chance to defend yourself. You cannot face your accuser, you don't know who, what, how, where or when. All you have is a charge. A perfect invitation to hurt people you don't like.

There are whistleblowers all the time in companies and agencies and none of them get total anonymity.

I don't want to live in the society of fear and snitches your approach would create.

A whistleblower doesnt make the decision to prosecute. They just provide the info for the authorities to investigate and then charge or not.
People act in anonymity all the time. The girl who witnesses a mob hit is unlikely to give her name when she phones the cops. Its up to them to make the case.

The girl who witnesses a mob hit is unlikely to give her name when she phones the cops. Its up to them to make the case.

If the girl doesn't testify, you can't use her testimony.
Can't even mention she was a witness.
Try the impeachment again without mentioning the "whistleblower"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

The whistleblower’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday that efforts to identify their client “will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm” and will deter future whistleblowers.

Notably, the 2014 law ultimately puts the president in charge of enforcing the whistleblower protections.

A whistleblower act that does not protect the whistleblower is a meaningless piece of paper. A whistleblower is somebody who performs a public service. They do not act as judge and jury. They raise concerns and pass them on to senior people who then make a decision. In which case their identity being known is not necessarily in the public interest.

I can understand Trumps curiosity about this, he sees it as a betrayal, but as soon as the complaint is lodged the whistleblowers work is done.

But the US is a hugely violent and partisan society. Anonymity for a whistleblower is essential. If the current whistleblower gets killed then it will effectively kill off all future whistleblowers. That can not be a good thing for anybody apart from the crooks.

The Whistleblower Act needs to be strengthened to protect whistleblowers and ultimately the interests of the people.

What we likely have here is an agent from the Democrat cabal who's only mission was to try and undermine Trump's presidency. As for safety, the commie members of the House are more at risk of harm or death than this non-whistleblower. And if the rat (not whistleblower) is actually scared, too Fn bad. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Forget about Trump. The American people have the absolute right to see all cards on the table face up. Our elected President is under attack, and we need to find out who the attacker was an his or her motives. We can't allow people in the White House who are working against the President instead of for the American public. We have a right to know.

Now imagine a world where a whistleblower is thinking about grassing up a Dem President or official.Would you want them to be scared to come forward ?

Would you want them to be scared to come forward ?

Taking down a president is a serious thing. No hiding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's partisan about quoting the law. If you are guaranteed total anonymity then anyone can accuse you of anything and you have little chance to defend yourself. You cannot face your accuser, you don't know who, what, how, where or when. All you have is a charge. A perfect invitation to hurt people you don't like.

There are whistleblowers all the time in companies and agencies and none of them get total anonymity.

I don't want to live in the society of fear and snitches your approach would create.

A whistleblower doesnt make the decision to prosecute. They just provide the info for the authorities to investigate and then charge or not.
People act in anonymity all the time. The girl who witnesses a mob hit is unlikely to give her name when she phones the cops. Its up to them to make the case.

Irrelevant. There needs to be balance to prevent abuse. If you call the cops to phone in a tip on a mobster, you don't stay anonymous to the police. And ultimately not to the mob either. It would be nice to live in your soft, comfortable dream world Tommy, but the simple truth is that you have a right to face your accuser, otherwise, people can just make up shit against anyone they don't like.

Not without the evidence to back it up. Giving a tip is just the start and a large percentage end in the bin.

So you can be accused of being heard saying xyz over the phone by persons ABC (unknown), and you don't know who it is, so can't say whether they were really even there to hear anything or not, only told to you by someone with EVERY DESIRE to see you prosecuted, ON THEIR WORD ALONE.

No cross-examination, no test of the claim. No way to refute the "word" of the whistleblower. Sound familiar Tommy? Of course not. I didn't think you'd ever get it.

It doesnt matter if they were there or not. They raised an issue and their info proved to be true. That is the end of their involvement. The transcripts (redacted) are the basis for the prosecution not the report of the conversation.

They raised an issue and their info proved to be true.

They made an accusation, they should be open to cross-examination.

That is the end of their involvement.

Liar.

 

[toobfreak]

What's partisan about quoting the law. If you are guaranteed total anonymity then anyone can accuse you of anything and you have little chance to defend yourself. You cannot face your accuser, you don't know who, what, how, where or when. All you have is a charge. A perfect invitation to hurt people you don't like.

There are whistleblowers all the time in companies and agencies and none of them get total anonymity.

I don't want to live in the society of fear and snitches your approach would create.

A whistleblower doesnt make the decision to prosecute. They just provide the info for the authorities to investigate and then charge or not.
People act in anonymity all the time. The girl who witnesses a mob hit is unlikely to give her name when she phones the cops. Its up to them to make the case.

Irrelevant. There needs to be balance to prevent abuse. If you call the cops to phone in a tip on a mobster, you don't stay anonymous to the police. And ultimately not to the mob either. It would be nice to live in your soft, comfortable dream world Tommy, but the simple truth is that you have a right to face your accuser, otherwise, people can just make up shit against anyone they don't like.

Not without the evidence to back it up. Giving a tip is just the start and a large percentage end in the bin.

So you can be accused of being heard saying xyz over the phone by persons ABC (unknown), and you don't know who it is, so can't say whether they were really even there to hear anything or not, only told to you by someone with EVERY DESIRE to see you prosecuted, ON THEIR WORD ALONE.

No cross-examination, no test of the claim. No way to refute the "word" of the whistleblower. Sound familiar Tommy? Of course not. I didn't think you'd ever get it.

It doesnt matter if they were there or not. They raised an issue and their info proved to be true. That is the end of their involvement. The transcripts (redacted) are the basis for the prosecution not the report of the conversation.

Idiot. You are making a set of false assumptions you cannot know in advance just to push your agenda. If the person can be shown not to have been there then he is lying about what he claimed. Their claim IS the "proof," and you cannot test that or challenge that because you don't even know who they are, or what they claimed or anything. Your argument is total bullshit giving one side of the court total power over the other and you are simply too dumb to see it as usual.

 

[basquebromance]

i agree with what Trump said last year.

the whistleblower should get the death penalty for treason, my friends!