Whistleblower’s Lawyers Release Statement Threatening Journalists If They Publish His Name

[bigrebnc1775]

Wait, what happened to freedom of the press? If they have the name, they should release the name. Inquiring minds want to know. And I don't care about his family and friends. I do think he should be required to testify as a significant witness for this whole impeachment circus.

Once it gets into the hands of the senate Adam shit for brains can't protect his identity

 

[sparky]

Does the fact that our court system can silence media even register here?

perhaps being #48 on the world index might sink in>>>

2019 World Press Freedom Index | Reporters Without Borders

~S~

 

[Coyote]

There is a good reason to keep the identity of whistle blowers confidential, and those folks who are viewing this through a very PARTISAN lens should really think about this. The next time it could be a whistle blower reporting on your opposition. Will you react the same way - insist on revealing the identity or will you suddenly come to your senses because it's YOUR guy?

Whistle blowers perform an incredibly important function. Demanding public exposure will have a chilling effect on the willingness of anyone to come forward and report perceived wrong doing. They put their jobs, families and lives on the line in this era of violent rhetoric, demands for retribution and character assassination.

The process of investigation itself, from the first person who see's the report to the end of the investigation is one of determining whether there is credibility or not, to the report. What is generally done is to find corroboration and first hand knowledge of what is claimed. If you have that, you don't need the whistle blower - you have enough evidence to go forward with the investigation or to NOT go forward without that person's involvement.

People want to undo the entire whistle blower protection process - but - only for THIS guy who reported on THEIR president. Seriously?

Dangerous times.

He ain't a whistle blower. He is a brennan spy. He is a seditious bureaucrat who decided that he doesn't like the fact that the voters decided they don't like having a bureaucratic class who feel they are above the constitution, and the voters.

He is a whistle blower, we can't do this cafeteria style and pick choose who we think should or not be considered a whistleblower. Dangerous precedent.

 

[ph3iron]

Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.
Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.

Alleged Identity Of Whistleblower Leaked; Whistleblower's Lawyers Release Statement Threatening Journalists

Who cares?
Others have proved his story?
Don't tell me daily caller?

 

[westwall]

There is a good reason to keep the identity of whistle blowers confidential, and those folks who are viewing this through a very PARTISAN lens should really think about this. The next time it could be a whistle blower reporting on your opposition. Will you react the same way - insist on revealing the identity or will you suddenly come to your senses because it's YOUR guy?

Whistle blowers perform an incredibly important function. Demanding public exposure will have a chilling effect on the willingness of anyone to come forward and report perceived wrong doing. They put their jobs, families and lives on the line in this era of violent rhetoric, demands for retribution and character assassination.

The process of investigation itself, from the first person who see's the report to the end of the investigation is one of determining whether there is credibility or not, to the report. What is generally done is to find corroboration and first hand knowledge of what is claimed. If you have that, you don't need the whistle blower - you have enough evidence to go forward with the investigation or to NOT go forward without that person's involvement.

People want to undo the entire whistle blower protection process - but - only for THIS guy who reported on THEIR president. Seriously?

Dangerous times.

He ain't a whistle blower. He is a brennan spy. He is a seditious bureaucrat who decided that he doesn't like the fact that the voters decided they don't like having a bureaucratic class who feel they are above the constitution, and the voters.

He is a whistle blower, we can't do this cafeteria style and pick choose who we think should or not be considered a whistleblower. Dangerous precedent.

No, he's not. The whistleblower laws are very specific and he doesn't qualify in any respect.

 

[justoffal]

There is a good reason to keep the identity of whistle blowers confidential, and those folks who are viewing this through a very PARTISAN lens should really think about this. The next time it could be a whistle blower reporting on your opposition. Will you react the same way - insist on revealing the identity or will you suddenly come to your senses because it's YOUR guy?

Whistle blowers perform an incredibly important function. Demanding public exposure will have a chilling effect on the willingness of anyone to come forward and report perceived wrong doing. They put their jobs, families and lives on the line in this era of violent rhetoric, demands for retribution and character assassination.

The process of investigation itself, from the first person who see's the report to the end of the investigation is one of determining whether there is credibility or not, to the report. What is generally done is to find corroboration and first hand knowledge of what is claimed. If you have that, you don't need the whistle blower - you have enough evidence to go forward with the investigation or to NOT go forward without that person's involvement.

People want to undo the entire whistle blower protection process - but - only for THIS guy who reported on THEIR president. Seriously?

Dangerous times.

Then of course there are lying bastards pretending to be whistle blowers who get what they deserve.

There are deep State plants who are given their lines to set up innocent people.

There are political partisans who are insane enough to do anything to hurt the other side including use the whistleblower law in a perverted way.

If someone knocks one of them off so much the better.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Wait, what happened to freedom of the press? If they have the name, they should release the name. Inquiring minds want to know. And I don't care about his family and friends. I do think he should be required to testify as a significant witness for this whole impeachment circus.

You mean like how National Enquirer should have published the interview with the Playboy model who had sex with married Donald Trump- but buried it at Trump's request?

You mean that free press?

Do you know what "free" means?

.

It doesn't mean you're free to break the law.

It's very illegal for anyone to disclose the name of a whistleblower. Which is why no reputable news outlet will do such a thing. Nor would a reputable news outlet disclose the name of someone without proof.

There's no proof that this is the right person. He's getting death threats and may not even be involved.

Do you really believe that a totally innocent person should endure that?

Do you know what innocent until proven guilty means?

It's him....he's been outed....and he's also been exposed. Tough shit....
Maybe he shouldn't be so willing to use the whistleblower law in a perverted way.

Jo

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wait, what happened to freedom of the press? If they have the name, they should release the name. Inquiring minds want to know. And I don't care about his family and friends. I do think he should be required to testify as a significant witness for this whole impeachment circus.

You mean like how National Enquirer should have published the interview with the Playboy model who had sex with married Donald Trump- but buried it at Trump's request?

You mean that free press?

Do you know what "free" means?

.

It doesn't mean you're free to break the law.

It's very illegal for anyone to disclose the name of a whistleblower. Which is why no reputable news outlet will do such a thing. Nor would a reputable news outlet disclose the name of someone without proof.

There's no proof that this is the right person. He's getting death threats and may not even be involved.

Do you really believe that a totally innocent person should endure that?

Do you know what innocent until proven guilty means?

Lol, innocent until proven guilty? Like how almost every dem was SURE trump was guilty before even a shred of evidence had been shown, before the investigation had even begun.

Like how almost every dem was SURE kavanaugh was guilty before any investigation had been done, or before any evidence shown.

Look, I agree with you, but, at least be consistent.

Also, where is this law that states that releasing a whistleblowers name is illegal? I've seen that said a few times now

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wait, what happened to freedom of the press? If they have the name, they should release the name. Inquiring minds want to know. And I don't care about his family and friends. I do think he should be required to testify as a significant witness for this whole impeachment circus.

You mean like how National Enquirer should have published the interview with the Playboy model who had sex with married Donald Trump- but buried it at Trump's request?

You mean that free press?

Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.
Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.

You are a good little parrot.

You got no room to talk as I recall you want names of Trump donors released.

Political donors are not whistleblowers.

But they are private citizens and who they donate to is nobodies business.

I'm curious though, what is the purpose of wanting a list of donors? Could it be for doxxing purposes? Maybe to intimialdate them? Im just wondering what possible reason someone would want a list of donors.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.
Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.

Alleged Identity Of Whistleblower Leaked; Whistleblower's Lawyers Release Statement Threatening Journalists

Who cares?
Others have proved his story?
Don't tell me daily caller?

Trump can put an end to this just by releasing the transcripts

 

[justoffal]

Wait, what happened to freedom of the press? If they have the name, they should release the name. Inquiring minds want to know. And I don't care about his family and friends. I do think he should be required to testify as a significant witness for this whole impeachment circus.

You mean like how National Enquirer should have published the interview with the Playboy model who had sex with married Donald Trump- but buried it at Trump's request?

You mean that free press?

Do you know what "free" means?

.

It doesn't mean you're free to break the law.

It's very illegal for anyone to disclose the name of a whistleblower. Which is why no reputable news outlet will do such a thing. Nor would a reputable news outlet disclose the name of someone without proof.

There's no proof that this is the right person. He's getting death threats and may not even be involved.

Do you really believe that a totally innocent person should endure that?

Do you know what innocent until proven guilty means?

Lol, innocent until proven guilty? Like how almost every dem was SURE trump was guilty before even a shred of evidence had been shown, before the investigation had even begun.

Like how almost every dem was SURE kavanaugh was guilty before any investigation had been done, or before any evidence shown.

Look, I agree with you, but, at least be consistent.

Also, where is this law that states that releasing a whistleblowers name is illegal? I've seen that said a few times now

It's not illegal if it was even Schiff wouldn't have his name.

They're just upset because the leaky DC establishment leaks in both directions. This time the leaks worked against them. Oh well when you live by the leak you die by the leak.


Jo

 

[justoffal]

You mean like how National Enquirer should have published the interview with the Playboy model who had sex with married Donald Trump- but buried it at Trump's request?

You mean that free press?

Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.
Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.Eric
Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.Eric Ciaramella.EricCiaramella.

You are a good little parrot.

You got no room to talk as I recall you want names of Trump donors released.

Political donors are not whistleblowers.

But they are private citizens and who they donate to is nobodies business.

I'm curious though, what is the purpose of wanting a list of donors? Could it be for doxxing purposes? Maybe to intimialdate them? Im just wondering what possible reason someone would want a list of donors.

You are wasting your time Lefty owns no mirrors.

Jo

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wait, what happened to freedom of the press? If they have the name, they should release the name. Inquiring minds want to know. And I don't care about his family and friends. I do think he should be required to testify as a significant witness for this whole impeachment circus.

You mean like how National Enquirer should have published the interview with the Playboy model who had sex with married Donald Trump- but buried it at Trump's request?

You mean that free press?

Do you know what "free" means?

.

It doesn't mean you're free to break the law.

It's very illegal for anyone to disclose the name of a whistleblower. Which is why no reputable news outlet will do such a thing. Nor would a reputable news outlet disclose the name of someone without proof.

There's no proof that this is the right person. He's getting death threats and may not even be involved.

Do you really believe that a totally innocent person should endure that?

Do you know what innocent until proven guilty means?

They do not care. If he is killed they will celebrate.

I think that's what you want to believe. Nobody wants him dead, however, perhaps, if its found that this was all a planned event because of his ties with the democrats, I think perhaps he should at least be reprimanded.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wait, what happened to freedom of the press? If they have the name, they should release the name. Inquiring minds want to know. And I don't care about his family and friends. I do think he should be required to testify as a significant witness for this whole impeachment circus.

You mean like how National Enquirer should have published the interview with the Playboy model who had sex with married Donald Trump- but buried it at Trump's request?

You mean that free press?

Do you know what "free" means?

.

It doesn't mean you're free to break the law.

It's very illegal for anyone to disclose the name of a whistleblower. Which is why no reputable news outlet will do such a thing. Nor would a reputable news outlet disclose the name of someone without proof.

There's no proof that this is the right person. He's getting death threats and may not even be involved.

Do you really believe that a totally innocent person should endure that?

Do you know what innocent until proven guilty means?

Did you bother to read the gibberish I was responding to? And....

Do you know what innocent until proven guilty means?

I do, perhaps you should explain the concept to your commie brethren.

.

I'm a member of that press you hate so much.

I know what freedom of the press is and I know that it doesn't include breaking federal law.

Freedom of the press doesn't protect anyone from violating any federal or state laws.

I'm not a communist.

It's really stupid to believe anyone who doesn't agree with your views is a communist. Especially since it's trump who has used communists to help him win the 2016 election and he's doing it again in the 2020 election with those same communists. He's not even pretending anymore.

I have been a registered Independent since 1978. I've voted a variety of parties and candidates through the decades.

I'm sure you can't say the same thing.

And I'm sure if the person you believe is the whistleblower is harmed or even killed, you would dance a happy dance of joy.

What federal law?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Meanwhile the left releases names of people they WANT attacked all the time with no repercussions at all.

THEY ARE NOT WHISTLEBLOWERS DINGBAT. LOL

Who cares if they are or are not whistleblowers. The fact is, the left loved it when the names.of right wingers are broadcast in public, and it causes distress for them. The point is, you guys want it both ways.

 

[Lakhota]

Can release of the whistleblower's name be prosecuted under the Whistleblower Protection Act? What about falsely naming someone as the whistleblower?

 

[WEATHER53]

The President being harangued over the sanctity of the invisible mans invisibility is insanity.

 

[WEATHER53]

The chances of him becoming dead are zero, He has gone nothing to piss off the Clintons and Donald don’t kill.

 

[WEATHER53]

Best way to try and protect a traitorous, bullshit spy is to give him the magical cover of “whistleblower” Realty, just another safe space.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is a good reason to keep the identity of whistle blowers confidential, and those folks who are viewing this through a very PARTISAN lens should really think about this. The next time it could be a whistle blower reporting on your opposition. Will you react the same way - insist on revealing the identity or will you suddenly come to your senses because it's YOUR guy?

Whistle blowers perform an incredibly important function. Demanding public exposure will have a chilling effect on the willingness of anyone to come forward and report perceived wrong doing. They put their jobs, families and lives on the line in this era of violent rhetoric, demands for retribution and character assassination.

The process of investigation itself, from the first person who see's the report to the end of the investigation is one of determining whether there is credibility or not, to the report. What is generally done is to find corroboration and first hand knowledge of what is claimed. If you have that, you don't need the whistle blower - you have enough evidence to go forward with the investigation or to NOT go forward without that person's involvement.

People want to undo the entire whistle blower protection process - but - only for THIS guy who reported on THEIR president. Seriously?

Dangerous times.

Except when the supposed whistle-blower is an obvious political plant. Ohh and guess what Coyote in the USA an accuser MUST face the accused, something the Dems are trying to prevent.