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

[Bush92]

This piece of shit is the lowest cowardly cocksucker in history. If you believe in this impeachment you are a goddamn ignorant idiot sonofabitch.

 

[Coyote]

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

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.

 

[007]

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.

What the NSA AG thinks is immaterial.

What the supposed whistle heard was second hand hearsay. That doesn't qualify him as a whistle blower. It does qualify him as a GOSSIPER of SECOND HAND BULL SHIT.

You are wrong, it is 100% material here because it was this Trump admin official that deemed whistleblower complaint proper and passed it on to Congress, thereby assuring legal protection to the person filing it in accordance with the whistleblower protection process.

The only way whistleblower protections would not apply is if the whistleblower did not follow the process and illegally disclosed classified materials.

Sorry, snowflake, but I'm right and you don't have a freakin' damn clue what the hell you're talking about.

I hope you can find a way to deal with it and your TDS doesn't get any worse. You're teetering on the edge of sanity as it is.

 

[Bush92]

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."

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.

The law changed so they could go after Trump and usurp democracy you fucking simpleton. Russia hoaxes didn’t work and neither will this one. Silent majority loves Trump in spite of liberal media bias. You stupid fuckers didn’t learn shit in 2016 did ya?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Correct.

 

[Bush92]

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.

Correct.

Sure. Get Trump by whatever means necessary including overturning the vote of those “white devils” that elected him.

 

[Bush92]

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.

Correct.

One of the biggest racist on the Board.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure. Get Trump by whatever means necessary including overturning the vote of those “white devils” that elected him.

You sound lie a fking moron, my little neonazi friend..

 

[OKTexas]

The form was changed the same time the report was filed

LIAR, the LAW has not changed since 2014, but you knew that already when you posted your LIE!

Sorry you can distinguish the difference between a law and a form. Carry on commie. LMAO

.

 

[westwall]

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."

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The best way to discredit a whistleblower is to call witnesses that know the guy.........find out he is a Democrat that has worked for Biden, and the DNC............a history of lying..........and destroy his creditability...........Proving Bias.............Finally, he never heard DIRECT evidence of anything.........he just heard that he heard someone say it.

From the phone conversation............where is the evidence showing that a Grand Jury should be called for further evidence............Ukraine officials have denied being pressured.........The very people he was supposed to be pressuring...........say it never happened..........and in fact had a Court Room Decision that they had influenced an election by giving information to a Dem back in 2016. And they did in fact Fire a Prosecutor looking into the Oil Giant there via PRESSURE from Biden.

Trump looking into the 2016 election isn't illegal............Asking countries to cooperate with our DOJ isn't illegal............We have Treaties that require open cooperation between countries for legal matters......

If the people the Dems claimed were be pressured.........say...........No we were not being pressured.......then where is the sufficient evidence of proceeding with a Grand Jury investigation.......Oh that's right...........LEGAL DUE PROCESS is NOT REQUIRED in the Mickey Mouse Club Congress.............Nor is it even required to go through the proper channels of the Judiciary Committee..............who are the legal eagles of Congress....

This is a political attack.........using abuse of power to try and overturn an election and nothing more.

Dummy, how can you discredit facts established by the testimony of TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MEMBERS?

ZERO of the case against Trump relies on the credibility of the whistleblower yet stupid Republicans think everything will go away if only they can go after his/her character.

It certainly doesn't rely on the transcript. So what does it rely on?

 

[bripat9643]

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."

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.

Flat out lie.

From the old form:

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

100% wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

False.

 

[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.

False.

I just posted the evidence, moron.

 

[Coyote]

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."

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.)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I just posted the evidence,

Oops no, sorry, you did not.

 

[bripat9643]

I just posted the evidence,

Oops no, sorry, you did not.

Yes, I did. Here it is again: