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

[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.

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.

Yes one can the veracity and the political views held by a supposed whistle-blower are pertinent to the testimony given.

 

[Clipper]

Just heard that the 'whistleblower's' lawyers are no longer talking to Schiff. Something about their liability I guess. Besides how can someone be a whistleblower when the 'whistle' has already been blown? Trump released the transcript of his call. The 'whistleblower' is nothing but an Op Ed. This whole impeachment nonsense is nothing but a circus with Pelosi being the ring-master and Schiff being the barker. The rest are riding a clown car.

It may be a circus to you but I'm having a field day watching Trump & his right wing mob squirm. Trump may beat this because Trump Party Republicans don't give a shit what he does as long as he's doing their dirty work. Now there's a real "quid quo pro" for ya. But in the meantime for the next few months as the process plays out I'll go to sleep knowing Trump's life is being made miserable. What goes around, comes around, Donny Boy. Karma for all the people YOU'VE screwed over. Fuck ya.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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/she is not a whistle blower, they are a gossip relaying second-hand info relayed by some other party/parties.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

Can Trump record Schiff's conversations and leak them to the press?

Nah, Shiff will leak it to the press, after which it will be awarded the same gravity as Jesus on the Mount.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Can I get an AMEN! brother!

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

He's a gossip. Do you really want to make a precedent based on gossip?

 

[Oldstyle]

So how many death threats do you imagine this guy has gotten? I know practically all of them are just you keyboard commandos talking tough but there are some of you who would murder this guy with a smile.

He's not testifying because he doesn't want to answer the questions that will be coming his way from Republicans!

 

[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/she is not a whistle blower, they are a gossip relaying second-hand info relayed by some other party/parties.

Who decides that?

 

[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.

He's a gossip. Do you really want to make a precedent based on gossip?

He isn’t gossip. Or they would not have found it credible. And it has been corroborated through the testimony.

 

[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.

Yes one can the veracity and the political views held by a supposed whistle-blower are pertinent to the testimony given.

The political views of the whistleblower are irrelevant if it is corroborated.

Why did you never care before?

 

[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.

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.

Yes one can the veracity and the political views held by a supposed whistle-blower are pertinent to the testimony given.

The political views of the whistleblower are irrelevant if it is corroborated.

Why did you never care before?

Be specific and CITE with a link and a quote with the witness that corroborated that Trump did anything illegal.

 

[Coyote]

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

The best way to discredit a whistleblower is to claim HE is the traiter instead of the person he is reporting on, isn’t?

 

[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.

Yes one can the veracity and the political views held by a supposed whistle-blower are pertinent to the testimony given.

The political views of the whistleblower are irrelevant if it is corroborated.

Why did you never care before?

Be specific and CITE with a link and a quote with the witness that corroborated that Trump did anything illegal.

If we are going to be SPECIFIC let’s start with an accurate premise.

The testimony given has supported what the whistle blower stated.

No one, included the whistleblower has made a determination of illegality. That is going to be up to others.

 

[Ropey]

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

 

[Coyote]

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.

What if it wasn’t planned? No evidence to support that claim.

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.

Yes they are specific and yes he does qualify. What specific law disqualifies him?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

What if it wasn’t planned? No evidence to support that claim.

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.

Yes they are specific and yes he does qualify. What specific law disqualifies him?

What if it wasn’t planned? No evidence to support that claim.

The form was changed the same time the report was filed, and he contacted shitts staff prior to filing anything with the IG. He also had lawyers draft the report and included news reports. Also he hadn't worked in the WH since 2017, all coincidences, I think not, too well choreographed.

.

 

[skye]

Everybody knows the name by know....

everybody

another CIA young idiot...

we know that stupid name lol

 

[skye]

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

lol

yes that' it!

 

[Coyote]

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.

What if it wasn’t planned? No evidence to support that claim.

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.

Yes they are specific and yes he does qualify. What specific law disqualifies him?

What if it wasn’t planned? No evidence to support that claim.

The form was changed the same time the report was filed, and he contacted shitts staff prior to filing anything with the IG. He also had lawyers draft the report and included news reports. Also he hadn't worked in the WH since 2017, all coincidences, I think not, too well choreographed.

.

1. A FORM cannot change the law.

2. Lawyers did not draft the report.

3. He contacted the Intelligence Commitee, which is a normal procedure in regards to this.

Whistleblower drafted complaint 'entirely on their own,' attorney says

"The Whistleblower drafted the Complaint entirely on their own. Legal counsel Andrew Bakaj provided guidance on process but was not involved in the drafting of the document and did not review it in advance," Mark Zaid, an attorney for the whistleblower, told ABC News. "In fact, none of the legal team saw the Complaint until it was publicly released by Congress. To be unequivocally clear, no Member or congressional staff had any input into or reviewed the Complaint before it was submitted to the Intelligence Community Inspector General."


According to a spokesperson for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the whistleblower contacted the committee before raising concerns about alleged wrongdoing with the intelligence community inspector general.

"Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community," Patrick Boland, the spokesman, wrote in a statement. "Consistent with the Committee's longstanding procedures, Committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector General and to seek legal counsel."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Yes one can the veracity and the political views held by a supposed whistle-blower are pertinent to the testimony given.

The political views of the whistleblower are irrelevant if it is corroborated.

Why did you never care before?

Be specific and CITE with a link and a quote with the witness that corroborated that Trump did anything illegal.

If we are going to be SPECIFIC let’s start with an accurate premise.

The testimony given has supported what the whistle blower stated.

No one, included the whistleblower has made a determination of illegality. That is going to be up to others.

You can not link to a single person nor their supposed testimony that corroborates the supposed whistle Blower and yet you keep claiming it happened, either provide the links or shut up you lying asshole.