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

[OKTexas]

Yeah, that's a great story, I wonder if they would say the same under oath?

.

Makes more sense then the rubbish you are claiming.

What did they change in the whistleblower laws?

You can now present hearsay evidence for one thing. Illegal in a Court of law, but totally okay in schitt for brains kangaroo court.

Not really. The law itself did not change. Hearsay has always been allowed in a whistle blower REPORT, that is not the same as using hearsay in a court. That is why part of the investigative process is finding and interviewing the firsthand sources identified in the report.

The whole idea that law changed is fake news. No one has shown an actual change in the law or the rules. It is all designed to distract.

Up until a month prior to this latest bogus claim, a whistleblower could not claim the status based on hearsay evidence.

Yes he could West - he totally could. The law always allowed for 2nd hand information from a whistleblower - it just had to be stated as such. Then they would investigate it. That did not change. It is part of a disengenius attempt to create a conspiracy theory and muddy the waters. That's why I asked - show me where the statute or law was changed. No one can.

No Hearsay Rule Change for Whistleblowers

In fact, the old form gave filers the following options to indicate how they obtained the information that was being disclosed: “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; “Other employees have told me about events or records involved”; or “Other source(s) (please explain).”

“Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute,” the ICIG’s statement said. “The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law.”

The statement went on to add that since Michael Atkinson started as inspector general on May 29, 2018, “the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.”

Furthermore, the ICIG statement said that the whistleblower who filed the Aug. 12 complaint against Trump used the old form — not the new one — and checked the boxes indicating that the claims were based on both direct knowledge of events and information obtained from others. (The new form still asks similar questions.)

and checked the boxes indicating that the claims were based on both direct knowledge of events and information obtained from others.

Yet in the report the leaker admitted he had no first hand knowledge, so if what you claim is true, HE LIED. He also didn't check the box that he had earlier contacts with congress, a lie of omission. I'm sure he had to sign that the information was true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

.

 

[OKTexas]

By the way, to save you fools from any more embarrassment:

The IC IG publicly said the whistleblower had first hand information.

Oh well, back the the wingnut bubble search for the next bunk talking point to embarrass yourselves with...

So how did he get it since he hadn't worked in the WH since 2017, did he have an illegal tap?

.

 

[keepitreal]

You know what?
This shit sure created a diversion from anything Epstein

 

[Dana7360]

It's also been completely contradicted by people that were actually listening to the call.

Delusional trumpkin self soothing. Not one single fact has been contradicted, and every fact has been corroborated. You people are freaks.

Well commie, feel free to put your shit to the senate and see how many seconds it takes to dismiss it.

.

Haha, the"alamo" of the neonazi crybabies.... "Thr senate will protect our criminal cult leader".

The poster you replied too must be the commie, since that poster doesn't know the basics of our senate, our constitution or how impeachment and trial in the senate works.

The senate isn't a judicial body. They're legislative. As such they have no power to "dismiss" any articles of impeachment.

They are obligated by the constitution to hold a trial.

The senate members are the jury. They can vote not guilty after the evidence is presented however no one can have any motion or request to "dismiss" the articles of impeachment.

Only a commie doesn't know this so the person you're replying to must be a commie.

 

[OKTexas]

It's also been completely contradicted by people that were actually listening to the call.

Delusional trumpkin self soothing. Not one single fact has been contradicted, and every fact has been corroborated. You people are freaks.

Well commie, feel free to put your shit to the senate and see how many seconds it takes to dismiss it.

.

Haha, the"alamo" of the neonazi crybabies.... "Thr senate will protect our criminal cult leader".

The poster you replied too must be the commie, since that poster doesn't know the basics of our senate, our constitution or how impeachment and trial in the senate works.

The senate isn't a judicial body. They're legislative. As such they have no power to "dismiss" any articles of impeachment.

They are obligated by the constitution to hold a trial.

The senate members are the jury. They can vote not guilty after the evidence is presented however no one can have any motion or request to "dismiss" the articles of impeachment.

Only a commie doesn't know this so the person you're replying to must be a commie.

Perhaps you should study your history, there was a motion to dismiss the Clinton impeachment, it was voted down. I'm sure an apology is forthcoming. LMAO

During Clinton’s impeachment trial, Byrd moved to dismiss the charges after Republicans had laid out their evidence.

The motion failed on a party-line vote in a Republican-controlled chamber, but it’s possible it would succeed if offered by a Republican in the present-day Senate, where the GOP holds a 53-47 majority.

How the Senate could proceed with impeachment

.

 

[bripat9643]

The "whistle blower" isn't even a real "whistle blower" under the definition of "whistle blower," therefore isn't entitled to any of the legal protections a "whistle blower" might have.

Trump’s NSA Attorney General disagreed with you when he found the complaint credible and urgent.

Wow, you're doing the same thing as the leaker, inventing shit. Is the NSA Attorney General second cousin to Harvey the rabbit?

.

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

They changed the rules, asshole.

THEY

The NSA, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

The form was changed, which means the rule was changed.

False. You really are not getting this.

I just posted both versions of the form. Even the NSA acknowledges that the form was changed.

Your willful blindness is difficult to comprehend.

 

[bripat9643]

What's "false,"

For the eleventieth time:

No rule change. Nothing pertinent.

Got it?

The rule was changed, shit for brains.

No rule was changed. You are regurgitating a debunked talking point.

Did you read this in Giuliani's signed affidavits that he waved around on television?

Nothing has been debunked, moron. The form was changed, which means the rule was changed. Here are the two versions:

Old Version:

New Version:

No, it doesn’t.

Show us where the statute was changed. It would be a matter of public record.

No one said the legislation Congress passed was changed. However, legislation is filled out with regulations created by the bureaucracy, and the form was clearly changed

 

[dudmuck]

The "whistle blower" isn't even a real "whistle blower" under the definition of "whistle blower," therefore isn't entitled to any of the legal protections a "whistle blower" might have.

Trump’s NSA Attorney General disagreed with you when he found the complaint credible and urgent.

Wow, you're doing the same thing as the leaker, inventing shit. Is the NSA Attorney General second cousin to Harvey the rabbit?

.

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

They changed the rules, asshole.

Whistle blower protection rules havent changed.
As detailed here, protections apply when they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations.

 

[AntonToo]

The "whistle blower" isn't even a real "whistle blower" under the definition of "whistle blower," therefore isn't entitled to any of the legal protections a "whistle blower" might have.

Trump’s NSA Attorney General disagreed with you when he found the complaint credible and urgent.

Wow, you're doing the same thing as the leaker, inventing shit. Is the NSA Attorney General second cousin to Harvey the rabbit?

.

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

Yet you still don't seem to know that there's no such thing as a NSA Attorney General, and you want to preach about law? LMAO

.

Oh that’s what you are talking about. Ok I made a mistake it’s NSA INSPECTOR General, which changes absolutely nothing in the discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

The "whistle blower" isn't even a real "whistle blower" under the definition of "whistle blower," therefore isn't entitled to any of the legal protections a "whistle blower" might have.

Trump’s NSA Attorney General disagreed with you when he found the complaint credible and urgent.

Wow, you're doing the same thing as the leaker, inventing shit. Is the NSA Attorney General second cousin to Harvey the rabbit?

.

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

They changed the rules, asshole.

Whistle blower protection rules havent changed.
As detailed here, protections apply when they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations.

I just proved they have changed. No one said the protections changed. The reporting requirements have changed. When are you numskulls going to quit arguing with indisputable documented facts?

 

[AntonToo]

Trump’s NSA Attorney General disagreed with you when he found the complaint credible and urgent.

Wow, you're doing the same thing as the leaker, inventing shit. Is the NSA Attorney General second cousin to Harvey the rabbit?

.

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

They changed the rules, asshole.

Whistle blower protection rules havent changed.
As detailed here, protections apply when they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations.

I just proved they have changed. No one said the protections changed. The reporting requirements have changed. When are you numskulls going to quit arguing with indisputable documented facts?

Whatever “they” did the facts are not changed - whistleblower followed the protocol laid out in the law and is therefore fully untitled to the protections.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow, you're doing the same thing as the leaker, inventing shit. Is the NSA Attorney General second cousin to Harvey the rabbit?

.

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

They changed the rules, asshole.

Whistle blower protection rules havent changed.
As detailed here, protections apply when they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations.

I just proved they have changed. No one said the protections changed. The reporting requirements have changed. When are you numskulls going to quit arguing with indisputable documented facts?

Whatever “they” did the facts are not changed - whistleblower followed the protocol laid out in the law and is therefore fully untitled to the protections.

Thanks for proving beyond all doubt that you're as dumb as a tree stump. You didn't get the point, as always. Prior to the change in the form, his "evidence" wouldn't have been sufficient to get him protection.

 

[AntonToo]

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

They changed the rules, asshole.

Whistle blower protection rules havent changed.
As detailed here, protections apply when they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations.

I just proved they have changed. No one said the protections changed. The reporting requirements have changed. When are you numskulls going to quit arguing with indisputable documented facts?

Whatever “they” did the facts are not changed - whistleblower followed the protocol laid out in the law and is therefore fully untitled to the protections.

Thanks for proving beyond all doubt that you're as dumb as a tree stump. You didn't get the point, as always. Prior to the change in the form, his "evidence" wouldn't have been sufficient to get him protection.

moron, what “they” did or didn’t do is not for whistleblower to resolve. He was given the submission forms, filled them out and filed his complaint accordingly.

You want to go investigate the department policy changes? Ok good luck with that, but what you are talking about is completely moot as to legal applicability of the whistleblower protections.

 

[bripat9643]

They changed the rules, asshole.

Whistle blower protection rules havent changed.
As detailed here, protections apply when they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations.

I just proved they have changed. No one said the protections changed. The reporting requirements have changed. When are you numskulls going to quit arguing with indisputable documented facts?

Whatever “they” did the facts are not changed - whistleblower followed the protocol laid out in the law and is therefore fully untitled to the protections.

Thanks for proving beyond all doubt that you're as dumb as a tree stump. You didn't get the point, as always. Prior to the change in the form, his "evidence" wouldn't have been sufficient to get him protection.

moron, what “they” did or didn’t do is not for whistleblower to resolve. He was given the submission forms, filled them out and filed his complaint accordingly.

I didn't say it was, you fucking moron. You keep arguing against claims I haven't made. That's because you can't argue with irrefutable facts.

You want to go investigate the department policy changes? Ok good luck with that, but what you are talking about is completely moot as to legal applicability of the whistleblower protections.

It's not moot with regard to whether he is covered by the Whistleblower laws since it's not clear that the IG had the authority to change the form.

Intel Community Secretly Nixed Whistleblower Demand Of First-Hand Info​

In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.

“The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the September 3 OLC opinion noted. “Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand.”

“The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of “urgent concern” that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees,” the OLC opinion continued. “We conclude that it does not.”

It is not known precisely when the August 2019 revision to the whistleblower complaint form was approved, nor is it known which, if any, version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the complainant completed prior to addressing his complaint to Congress.​

 

[bripat9643]

By the way, to save you fools from any more embarrassment:

The IC IG publicly said the whistleblower had first hand information.

Oh well, back the the wingnut bubble search for the next bunk talking point to embarrass yourselves with...

The IG admitted that didn't even read the whistleblower report. He's a clueless moron.

 

[OKTexas]

The "whistle blower" isn't even a real "whistle blower" under the definition of "whistle blower," therefore isn't entitled to any of the legal protections a "whistle blower" might have.

Trump’s NSA Attorney General disagreed with you when he found the complaint credible and urgent.

Wow, you're doing the same thing as the leaker, inventing shit. Is the NSA Attorney General second cousin to Harvey the rabbit?

.

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

Yet you still don't seem to know that there's no such thing as a NSA Attorney General, and you want to preach about law? LMAO

.

Oh that’s what you are talking about. Ok I made a mistake it’s NSA INSPECTOR General, which changes absolutely nothing in the discussion.

Close, but no cigar. Try Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG). I just love pointing out you know it all commies, really DON'T KNOW IT ALL. Carry on commie. LMAO

.

 

[AntonToo]

Trump’s NSA Attorney General disagreed with you when he found the complaint credible and urgent.

Wow, you're doing the same thing as the leaker, inventing shit. Is the NSA Attorney General second cousin to Harvey the rabbit?

.

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

Yet you still don't seem to know that there's no such thing as a NSA Attorney General, and you want to preach about law? LMAO

.

Oh that’s what you are talking about. Ok I made a mistake it’s NSA INSPECTOR General, which changes absolutely nothing in the discussion.

Close, but no cigar. Try Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG). I just love pointing out you know it all commies, really DON'T KNOW IT ALL. Carry on commie. LMAO

.

how the fuck do your nitpicks change the discussion?

They don't, you are just looking to talk back for absolutely no constructive reason.

Here is a cookie, now go fuck yourself.

 

[OKTexas]

Wow, you're doing the same thing as the leaker, inventing shit. Is the NSA Attorney General second cousin to Harvey the rabbit?

.

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

Yet you still don't seem to know that there's no such thing as a NSA Attorney General, and you want to preach about law? LMAO

.

Oh that’s what you are talking about. Ok I made a mistake it’s NSA INSPECTOR General, which changes absolutely nothing in the discussion.

Close, but no cigar. Try Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG). I just love pointing out you know it all commies, really DON'T KNOW IT ALL. Carry on commie. LMAO

.

how the fuck do your nitpicks change the discussion?

They don't, you are just looking to talk back for absolutely no constructive reason.

Here is a cookie, now go fuck yourself.

Poor wittle commie, your ignorance of facts goes to your credibility, which at this point you have none. All you've done is embellish your talking points with fiction. Carry on commie.


.

 

[AntonToo]

I’m just explaining how the whistleblower laws work for you ignoramuses.

So long as the legal process of filing the complaint was followed (and even according to high ranking Republicans like Grasley it was) the whistleblower protections fully apply.

Sorry you don’t like reality.

Yet you still don't seem to know that there's no such thing as a NSA Attorney General, and you want to preach about law? LMAO

.

Oh that’s what you are talking about. Ok I made a mistake it’s NSA INSPECTOR General, which changes absolutely nothing in the discussion.

Close, but no cigar. Try Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG). I just love pointing out you know it all commies, really DON'T KNOW IT ALL. Carry on commie. LMAO

.

how the fuck do your nitpicks change the discussion?

They don't, you are just looking to talk back for absolutely no constructive reason.

Here is a cookie, now go fuck yourself.

Poor wittle commie, your ignorance of facts goes to your credibility, which at this point you have none. All you've done is embellish your talking points with fiction. Carry on commie.


.

Ok idiot, you get back to us when you have something actually meaningful to add to the discussion.