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

[AntonToo]

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?

They are TWO DIFFERENT FORMS

Just read their names for fucks sake.

 

[OKTexas]

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

And more say he's full of shit.

.

 

[bripat9643]

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:

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.

Wrong, dumbass. Look at the top form. It says "Urgent Concern Disclosure Form." Look at the bottom one. It says "Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form." They're two different versions of the same form - one is from before August, and the other is from after. That's what the article where they are located says.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

They are TWO DIFFERENT FORMS

Just read their names for fucks sake.

You believe that because the order of the words in the title is slightly different, that means it's an entirely different form?

What a maroon.

 

[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

And more say he's full of shit.

.

I say he doesn't exist.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's don't want the whistle blower to testify under oath and be asked questions by the GOP because...go ahead Dem's you claim to be the champions of law and order, of transparency.

 

[jc456]

Dem's don't want the whistle blower to testify under oath and be asked questions by the GOP because...go ahead Dem's you claim to be the champions of law and order, of transparency.

there is no whistleblower/leaker. tell them to prove there is.

 

[WEATHER53]

Framing the President via anonymous “I heard someone else say” is as UnAmerican as it gets.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yeah, you run with that slick. BTW you might want to turn on your spell check before you shower us with any more of your ignorance.

.

 

[WEATHER53]

See if they run a real legal hearing then that allows for cross examination. If they reveal the traitor spy then he becomes subject to same
Emotionally askew libs solely want to make uncorroborated accusations and do not want to succumb to legal cross examination which may uncover frightening and damaging facts.

 

[iceberg]

Framing the President via anonymous “I heard someone else say” is as UnAmerican as it gets.

unfortunately 'News' these days is what people hear, not do. that translates into all this crap.

 

[OKTexas]

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

And more say he's full of shit.

.

I say he doesn't exist.

I wouldn't go that far, there is a warm body behind the mask. I question how the events went down though.

.

 

[edward37]

Dem's don't want the whistle blower to testify under oath and be asked questions by the GOP because...go ahead Dem's you claim to be the champions of law and order, of transparency.

and your president is scared shitless if he puts his hand on a bible

 

[jc456]

Framing the President via anonymous “I heard someone else say” is as UnAmerican as it gets.

if you ain't got the balls to expose the truth, you don't exist. Edward Snowden at least had the balls. He left the country, but why isn't anyone mentioning him as a whistleblower and his rights?

two faced fks is all I will say

 

[jc456]

See if they run a real legal hearing then that allows for cross examination. If they reveal the traitor spy then he becomes subject to same
Emotionally askew libs solely want to make uncorroborated accusations and do not want to succumb to legal cross examination which may uncover frightening and damaging facts.

Edward Snowden. Bring his name up, why aren't they wanting him protected?

 

[jc456]

Edward Snowden. I think that I will continue to mention him until they provide a name. Didn't obammy want old Ed to get locked up for spying? hmmmmmmm

What's different? The term whistleblower implies spying.

 

[Desperado]

Screw this secret whistle blower. If you going to accuse someone of a crime you should have to do it in the open and the accuse should be able to confront his accuser.

 

[jc456]

Screw this secret whistle blower. If you going to accuse someone of a crime you should have to do it in the open and the accuse should be able to confront his accuser.

I don't believe there is a whistleblower. without a name there is no information.

 

[jc456]

and I have a nice warm pile of crap if you think I'm taking schitt's word for anything. or any left fk. they lost all of my respect for any government business. Allowing illegals into our country! ha!! fk that.

 

[jc456]

Dem's don't want the whistle blower to testify under oath and be asked questions by the GOP because...go ahead Dem's you claim to be the champions of law and order, of transparency.

and your president is scared shitless if he puts his hand on a bible

so would you. so what. innocent men don't put hands on bibles in front of corrupt fkers. ask any black man