Whistleblower Act needs teeth

[toobfreak]

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"

Tommy does not get it. He is a DC mind living in an AC world. He wants to create the very society that the Soviets used to have where they had a snitch on every block who would "turn in" anyone they overheard conspiring against the state. The snitched on person got taken away, never to be heard from again and the snitch got a loaf of bread as the others starved.

Soon, lots of people were volunteering to be snitches and turning in lots of people so they never went hungry.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.

All to often there is no such thing as a whistle blower, just some hack who pretends he/she is a journalist by claiming "inside information" from an "anonymous source"...to this day no one can say positively what if anything "DEEPTHROAT" said or if the agent claiming he was deep throat was really the source and not someone just playing the part now...whistleblower anonymity flies in the face of the claim of transparency tommy and our legal system demands otherwise from accusers.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

For there to be a whistleblower there has to be some sort of wrongdoing. Since we know in this case there was no wrongdoing by Trump, there is no whistleblower.

He's merely a leaker.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well then, anyone could make up a story about Nancy Pelosi in unholy intercourse with a black goat in the House broom closet, and be anonymous.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well then, anyone could make up a story about Nancy Pelosi in unholy intercourse with a black goat in the House broom closet, and be anonymous.

Sounds like a plan.

And unless there was evidence to back it up that would be binned.

 

[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.

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"

Does an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause?
You are misinformed.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

The falsely accused, a concept throughout history europeans never seemed to grasp and why we needed our own form of governance.

 

[White 6]

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.

Whistle blower protections, in place are enough. They only guarantee non-punishment during the disclosure process. Protecting the identity during the process is just part of it. Sooner or later the world always finds out who someone is. This one is not an accuser, just a reporter of what was told to him, not much good as a witness. He will someday be solidly, factually identified.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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"

Does an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause?
You are misinformed.

Sorry, still can't use the anonymous info in court.
You can't say, "Tommy killed that guy.....the anonymous tipster said so".

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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

The falsely accused, a concept throughout history europeans never seemed to grasp and why we needed our own form of governance.

We get that. Magna Carta was based on it.

 

[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.

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"

Does an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause?
You are misinformed.

Sorry, still can't use the anonymous info in court.
You can't say, "Tommy killed that guy.....the anonymous tipster said so".

No but-.....................
"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

That is fine.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

We get that. Magna Carta was based on it.

Really? do you ever wonder who benefits from it?

 

[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.

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"

Does an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause?
You are misinformed.

Sorry, still can't use the anonymous info in court.
You can't say, "Tommy killed that guy.....the anonymous tipster said so".

No but-.....................
"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

That is fine.

There you go. Now you've manufactured a perfect situation to fit your agenda. But if the police acted on that tip, why would the tipster need to be "anonymous?" Important questions I'd want to know as a cop are:

• HOW did you know Tommy killed that guy?
• How do you know Tommy?
• What is your role and relationship with Tommy?
• What is your relationship to the victim?

It is at about that point that the police figure out that the reason why you tipped off the police on Tommy is because you HIRED Tommy to kill that guy who was an enemy of yours and now you're trying to frame Tommy because you're afraid he's squeal on you for not paying him!

 

[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.

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"

Does an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause?
You are misinformed.

Sorry, still can't use the anonymous info in court.
You can't say, "Tommy killed that guy.....the anonymous tipster said so".

No but-.....................
"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

That is fine.

"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

And if you had evidence of wrongdoing, the testimony of an anonymous "witness" still isn't
admissible in court.

 

[2aguy]

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.

It is not illegal for Trump, Congress, the press or even you to name the whistle blower, even though this guy isn't an official whislte blower and doesn't fit the definition..

The only one who can't name him is the Inspector General in terms of the investigation.

 

[toobfreak]

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"

Does an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause?
You are misinformed.

Sorry, still can't use the anonymous info in court.
You can't say, "Tommy killed that guy.....the anonymous tipster said so".

No but-.....................
"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

That is fine.

"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

And if you had evidence of wrongdoing, the testimony of an anonymous "witness" still isn't
admissible in court.

Why do you think that 3rd party testimony isn't permissible? Why do you think that if a witness cannot appear, their statement taken, recorded and presented must be notarized (witnessed) by some other official figure?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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"

Does an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause?
You are misinformed.

Sorry, still can't use the anonymous info in court.
You can't say, "Tommy killed that guy.....the anonymous tipster said so".

No but-.....................
"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

That is fine.

"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

And if you had evidence of wrongdoing, the testimony of an anonymous "witness" still isn't
admissible in court.

It isnt needed. We got everything we need.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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"

Does an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause?
You are misinformed.

Sorry, still can't use the anonymous info in court.
You can't say, "Tommy killed that guy.....the anonymous tipster said so".

No but-.....................
"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

That is fine.

"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

And if you had evidence of wrongdoing, the testimony of an anonymous "witness" still isn't
admissible in court.

Why do you think that 3rd party testimony isn't permissible? Why do you think that if a witness cannot appear, their statement taken, recorded and presented must be notarized (witnessed) by some other official figure?

Why do you think that if a witness cannot appear...…..

That old, face your accuser issue still applies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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"

Does an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause?
You are misinformed.

Sorry, still can't use the anonymous info in court.
You can't say, "Tommy killed that guy.....the anonymous tipster said so".

No but-.....................
"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

That is fine.

"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

And if you had evidence of wrongdoing, the testimony of an anonymous "witness" still isn't
admissible in court.

It isnt needed. We got everything we need.

Since the testimony of the whistleblower was used, he gets to be cross-examined.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Does an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause?
You are misinformed.

Sorry, still can't use the anonymous info in court.
You can't say, "Tommy killed that guy.....the anonymous tipster said so".

No but-.....................
"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

That is fine.

"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

And if you had evidence of wrongdoing, the testimony of an anonymous "witness" still isn't
admissible in court.

It isnt needed. We got everything we need.

Since the testimony of the whistleblower was used, he gets to be cross-examined.

It can be done from behind a screen.