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

[edward37]

It’s the height of absurdity that an unknown, unidentified, possibly non existent party is the key to a Presidential impeachment activity.
It smells like one familiar thing-Fake.

how do we know there ever was a leaker? all we have is one man's word and his word is less than a penny.

It's not a question of WHO the WB is ,it's a question of whether he speaks the truth ALREADY 4 other folks in gov't have verified what the WB has said

 

[jc456]

It’s the height of absurdity that an unknown, unidentified, possibly non existent party is the key to a Presidential impeachment activity.
It smells like one familiar thing-Fake.

how do we know there ever was a leaker? all we have is one man's word and his word is less than a penny.

It's not a question of WHO the WB is ,it's a question of whether he speaks the truth ALREADY 4 other folks in gov't have verified what the WB has said

no, it's about who the anonymous witness is. Period. I don't believe you. prove he exists!!! if he doesn't exist, then he didn't make any comment. schitt's did.

 

[WEATHER53]

“Whistleblower” is just the latest Mueller, Stormy, Avenatti , Kavanaugh, kids in cages, p grabber charade that liberals jump too as soon as the previous one is debunked
Remember, we are dealing with children’s emotions in adult bodies.

 

[edward37]

It’s the height of absurdity that an unknown, unidentified, possibly non existent party is the key to a Presidential impeachment activity.
It smells like one familiar thing-Fake.

how do we know there ever was a leaker? all we have is one man's word and his word is less than a penny.

It's not a question of WHO the WB is ,it's a question of whether he speaks the truth ALREADY 4 other folks in gov't have verified what the WB has said

no, it's about who the autonomous witness is. Period. I don't believe you. prove he exists!!! if he doesn't exist, then he didn't make any comment. schitt's did.

Your moron in the WH will prevent any whistle blower from coming forward with info of crimes , Is that what you want too?

 

[AntonToo]

It’s the height of absurdity that an unknown, unidentified, possibly non existent party is the key to a Presidential impeachment activity.
It smells like one familiar thing-Fake.

Except of course thats pure horseshit.

Facts about our president's corrupt behavior, detailed in WH documents and his admin member testimony to Congress are the keys to his impeachment.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Again dummy, thats not how it works.

It is not up to whistleblower to set the process. The ONLY thing whistleblower has to do is comply with the lawful process administered through the department.

There is absolutely nothing in the whistleblower law that states that first hand knowledge is required



Did US Intelligence Eliminate a Requirement That Whistleblowers Provide Firsthand Knowledge?

No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrong-doings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress.

Tom Devine, legal director for the watchdog non-profit Government Accountability Project, called The Federalist story a “shameless legal bluff.”

“No bureaucrat has the lawful authority to change the rules of the game for whistleblower rights,” Devine told us. “Not even the president can change that unilaterally.”

I just showed you the form where it says first hand knowledge is required, you fucking dumbass. Do you ever post anything that's actually true? It appears you are suffering from some kind of snowflake brain damage that makes you immune to facts.

We know it's not on the forum now, but it was until August. The question remains whether the changes made are legal. If no bureaucrat can change them unilaterally, then how did they get changed? None of you brainwashed dumbasses can explain that. You provided the evidence that shoots down your own case - proof positive that you're a dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

It’s the height of absurdity that an unknown, unidentified, possibly non existent party is the key to a Presidential impeachment activity.
It smells like one familiar thing-Fake.

Except ofcourse you just made that up - key to impeachement is a mountain of Trump administration member testimony to Congress and White House documents.

Facts about our president's corrupt behaviour are the keys to his impeachment.

What "bad behavior?"

Their testimony amounts to saying "Orange man bad!" That isn't sufficient for impeachment. a million people can testify that they don't agree with Trump's foreign policy, but he was elected precisely because of his proposed foreign policy. The President sets foreign policy, not a bunch of resentful snowflakes in the deep state.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Again dummy, thats not how it works.

It is not up to whistleblower to set the process. The ONLY thing whistleblower has to do is comply with the lawful process administered through the department.

There is absolutely nothing in the whistleblower law that states that first hand knowledge is required



Did US Intelligence Eliminate a Requirement That Whistleblowers Provide Firsthand Knowledge?

No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrong-doings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress.

Tom Devine, legal director for the watchdog non-profit Government Accountability Project, called The Federalist story a “shameless legal bluff.”

“No bureaucrat has the lawful authority to change the rules of the game for whistleblower rights,” Devine told us. “Not even the president can change that unilaterally.”

How about the leaker was required to report his complaint to the appropriate authority, which in this case was NOT the ICIG, the complaint had nothing to do with the intel community.

.

 

[bripat9643]

It’s the height of absurdity that an unknown, unidentified, possibly non existent party is the key to a Presidential impeachment activity.
It smells like one familiar thing-Fake.

how do we know there ever was a leaker? all we have is one man's word and his word is less than a penny.

It's not a question of WHO the WB is ,it's a question of whether he speaks the truth ALREADY 4 other folks in gov't have verified what the WB has said

no, it's about who the autonomous witness is. Period. I don't believe you. prove he exists!!! if he doesn't exist, then he didn't make any comment. schitt's did.

Your moron in the WH will prevent any whistle blower from coming forward with info of crimes , Is that what you want too?

If it's just gossip and hearsay, yes, that's precisely what I want.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump didn't want a face to face with Mueller only answers to written questions Why does the trump pos want only a face to face with the whistle blower?

The Constitution requires it, moron.

 

[WEATHER53]

Imagine you getting fired from you job because party 1 says they heard party 2 and 3 say that you were stealing and there is NO evidence of that other than the heresay and you have no idea who 1,2,3 are nor any ability to question them.

 

[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.

The laws that protect whistle-blowers are part of the whistle blower-laws.
Analogy would be: If you anonymously report a murder you are not obliged to be questioned by the murderer and his gang of fellow murderers.

When you say "the changed the rules", be specific.

The whistle-blower followed the procedures of submission, and reported laws violated. Therefore, is protected under the law. Or, I could propose a deal: make Trump's tax returns public and/or unredacted mueller report, and then look into making the whistle-blower public.

Who cares about the whistle-blower at this point. We have a metric ton of corroborating witnesses.
Ambassador Yovanovich
Advisor McKinley
Alex Vindman, purple heart recipient

 

[AntonToo]

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.

Again dummy, thats not how it works.

It is not up to whistleblower to set the process. The ONLY thing whistleblower has to do is comply with the lawful process administered through the department.

There is absolutely nothing in the whistleblower law that states that first hand knowledge is required



Did US Intelligence Eliminate a Requirement That Whistleblowers Provide Firsthand Knowledge?

No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrong-doings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress.

Tom Devine, legal director for the watchdog non-profit Government Accountability Project, called The Federalist story a “shameless legal bluff.”

“No bureaucrat has the lawful authority to change the rules of the game for whistleblower rights,” Devine told us. “Not even the president can change that unilaterally.”

How about the leaker was required to report his complaint to the appropriate authority, which in this case was NOT the ICIG, the complaint had nothing to do with the intel community.

.

Complaint had directly to do with the Intel Community because the transcript of the call was inapropriately filed in their top secret vault by WH lawyers.

 

[bripat9643]

The Ukraine says they were not pressured

After they were PRESSURED to say that!!!!!!

For fucks sakes even Mulvaney directly admited that he held up millitary aid at Trump's direction to pressure Ukraine.

Mick Mulvaney acknowledges Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine

The denials are getting more and more insane by the day.

we just hand out military aid with nothing in return for the money? really, you think that's how we've always done business with foreign countries? we just give them money for nothing in return? hmmmmm you ain't too bright is ya

I don't remember a case where military aid was contingent on the other country helping a President with his personal election campaign.

Yep- your orange Messiah- put the safety of the Ukraine at risk to further his own political re-election campaign.

Must make you really proud.

Military aid is always contingent on a lot of things. For instance, Military aid to Egypt is contingent on Egypt maintaining peaceful relations with Israel. Carter got the Nobel prize for that. If you believe that didn't benefit him politically, then you're a moron.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that Trump's motive was to benefit his campaign.

You got nothing.

 

[AntonToo]

The Ukraine says they were not pressured

After they were PRESSURED to say that!!!!!!

For fucks sakes even Mulvaney directly admited that he held up millitary aid at Trump's direction to pressure Ukraine.

Mick Mulvaney acknowledges Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine

The denials are getting more and more insane by the day.

we just hand out military aid with nothing in return for the money? really, you think that's how we've always done business with foreign countries? we just give them money for nothing in return? hmmmmm you ain't too bright is ya

I don't remember a case where military aid was contingent on the other country helping a President with his personal election campaign.

Yep- your orange Messiah- put the safety of the Ukraine at risk to further his own political re-election campaign.

Must make you really proud.

Military aid is always contingent on a lot of things. For instance, Military aid to Egypt is contingent on Egypt maintaining peaceful relations with Israel. Carter got the Nobel prize for that. If you believe that didn't benefit him politically, then you're a moron.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that Trump's motive was to benefit his campaign.

You got nothing.

You need to learn the difference between personal and national interests.

It is discusting and illegal to leverage American foreign policy for personal political gain.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The laws that protect whistle-blowers are part of the whistle blower-laws.
Analogy would be: If you anonymously report a murder you are not obliged to be questioned by the murderer and his gang of fellow murderers.

How are they going to make you testify if they don't know who you are?

However, the government has known who the so-called whistleblower is since the day this thing started.

When you say "the changed the rules", be specific.

The whistle-blower followed the procedures of submission, and reported laws violated. Therefore, is protected under the law. Or, I could propose a deal: make Trump's tax returns public and/or unredacted mueller report, and then look into making the whistle-blower public.

Who cares about the whistle-blower at this point. We have a metric ton of corroborating witnesses.
Ambassador Yovanovich
Advisor McKinley
Alex Vindman, purple heart recipient[/QUOTE]

There's a question as to whether the rules were changed legally to allow hearsay evidence. The law that became effective in August may not be valid.

None of your witnesses corroborated anything. All they did is vent their spleens. Opinions are not evidence.

Form prior to August:

Form after Aug:

 

[AntonToo]

There's a question as to whether the rules were changed legally to allow hearsay evidence. The law that became effective in August may not be valid.

None of your witnesses corroborated anything. All they did is vent their spleens. Opinions are not evidence.

Form prior to August:

Form after Aug:

Moron what part of ONLY CONGRESS CAN CHANGE THE ACTUAL LAW do you not get?

There is nothing in the law about a requirement for first hand knowledge. PERIOD.


Further, the "pre-August" passge you site is a department rule for IG, not whistleblower form that your "after August" form shows.

They are two different documents dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

After they were PRESSURED to say that!!!!!!

For fucks sakes even Mulvaney directly admited that he held up millitary aid at Trump's direction to pressure Ukraine.

Mick Mulvaney acknowledges Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine

The denials are getting more and more insane by the day.

we just hand out military aid with nothing in return for the money? really, you think that's how we've always done business with foreign countries? we just give them money for nothing in return? hmmmmm you ain't too bright is ya

I don't remember a case where military aid was contingent on the other country helping a President with his personal election campaign.

Yep- your orange Messiah- put the safety of the Ukraine at risk to further his own political re-election campaign.

Must make you really proud.

Military aid is always contingent on a lot of things. For instance, Military aid to Egypt is contingent on Egypt maintaining peaceful relations with Israel. Carter got the Nobel prize for that. If you believe that didn't benefit him politically, then you're a moron.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that Trump's motive was to benefit his campaign.

You got nothing.

You need to learn the difference between personal and national interests.

It is discusting and illegal to leverage American foreign policy for personal political gain.

Putting corrupt American criminal politicians is in the national interest. You can claim virtually anything a president does is for personal gain, and you frequently do. Proving it is another thing. A prosecutor would never get a conviction based on the available evidence. He wouldn't even file charges.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The laws that protect whistle-blowers are part of the whistle blower-laws.
Analogy would be: If you anonymously report a murder you are not obliged to be questioned by the murderer and his gang of fellow murderers.

How are they going to make you testify if they don't know who you are?

However, the government has known who the so-called whistleblower is since the day this thing started.

When you say "the changed the rules", be specific.

The whistle-blower followed the procedures of submission, and reported laws violated. Therefore, is protected under the law. Or, I could propose a deal: make Trump's tax returns public and/or unredacted mueller report, and then look into making the whistle-blower public.

Who cares about the whistle-blower at this point. We have a metric ton of corroborating witnesses.
Ambassador Yovanovich
Advisor McKinley
Alex Vindman, purple heart recipient

There's a question as to whether the rules were changed legally to allow hearsay evidence. The law that became effective in August may not be valid.

None of your witnesses corroborated anything. All they did is vent their spleens. Opinions are not evidence.

Form prior to August:

Form after Aug:

Moron what part of ONLY CONGRESS CAN CHANGE THE ACTUAL LAW do you not get?

There is nothing in the law about a requirement for first hand knowledge. PERIOD.

Nevertheless, the form changed. What part of "you're a fucking moron" don't you understand?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Again dummy, thats not how it works.

It is not up to whistleblower to set the process. The ONLY thing whistleblower has to do is comply with the lawful process administered through the department.

There is absolutely nothing in the whistleblower law that states that first hand knowledge is required



Did US Intelligence Eliminate a Requirement That Whistleblowers Provide Firsthand Knowledge?

No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrong-doings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress.

Tom Devine, legal director for the watchdog non-profit Government Accountability Project, called The Federalist story a “shameless legal bluff.”

“No bureaucrat has the lawful authority to change the rules of the game for whistleblower rights,” Devine told us. “Not even the president can change that unilaterally.”

How about the leaker was required to report his complaint to the appropriate authority, which in this case was NOT the ICIG, the complaint had nothing to do with the intel community.

.

Complaint had directly to do with the Intel Community because the transcript of the call was inapropriately filed in their top secret vault by WH lawyers.

Wrong. "Had to do with the intel community" is about as nebulous as you can get.