Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Trump Reveal the Whistleblower's Identity?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did Trump Reveal the Whistleblower's Identity?

    People are unhappy over the evolution...

    https://news.yahoo.com/trump-faces-f...kip=1577712928

    Donald Trump faced calls from his own party to show more restraint on Twitter amid a storm of outrage Sunday over the president revealing the name of a man widely thought to be the whistleblower who triggered his impeachment.

    Criticism has been growing since Trump retweeted an attack that included the name of the reported CIA staffer at the heart of the Ukraine scandal -- an act that could violate the whistleblower's guaranteed anonymity under the law.

    "If the president would tweet a little bit less, it wouldn't cause brain damage. But the president does not have to take my advice, nor do I expect him to," Republican Senator John Kennedy, a key Trump ally, told "Fox News Sunday."

    Trump is ending 2019 as the third president in US history to be impeached after pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, a rival in his 2020 reelection bid.

    The historic rebuke by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives for abuse of office and obstruction of Congress is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate in a trial expected to begin in January.

  • #2
    https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/201...orth-watching/


    CNN's Brian Stelter weighs in on President Trump's latest tweetstorm in which he retweeted an attack that included the unsubstantiated name of the whistleblower at the center of the Ukraine scandal.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hopefully.

      Comment


      • #4
        Why?

        Comment


        • #5
          Because, in our system of justice anyone and everyone has a right to know who their accuser(s) are in a trial. There is no reason to keep this person out of the spotlight. If they were to be retaliated against, the whole country would know it PDQ.

          But, there's sufficient reason to put them in the hot seat given Schiff's meeting with them, potentially coaching them to make the initial report, etc. Yes, yes, Schiff denies this but let's find out for sure because Schiff is a real piece of Schiff.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Because, in our system of justice anyone and everyone has a right to know who their accuser(s) are in a trial. There is no reason to keep this person out of the spotlight. If they were to be retaliated against, the whole country would know it PDQ.

            But, there's sufficient reason to put them in the hot seat given Schiff's meeting with them, potentially coaching them to make the initial report, etc. Yes, yes, Schiff denies this but let's find out for sure because Schiff is a real piece of Schiff.
            Schiff didn't meet with the whistleblower, his staff did. And that was only because the whistleblower was asking for procedural advice. You read and listen to too much right wing propaganda, conspiracy theories, and Republican talking points.

            And since the information given by the whistleblower has been confirmed by LtCol Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, and Dr Hill, among others, there is no need for him to be known or talked to. Trump is just angry because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and wants to personally threaten and attack him. Childish in the extreme, but that's Trump.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Massena View Post

              Schiff didn't meet with the whistleblower, his staff did. And that was only because the whistleblower was asking for procedural advice.
              Shouldn't the whistle-blower have approached not congressional staffers, but his own agency's inspector-general, if all he was seeking was "procedural advice"? You of all people should know what a big deal going outside the chain-of-command can be.
              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                Shouldn't the whistle-blower have approached not congressional staffers, but his own agency's inspector-general, if all he was seeking was "procedural advice"? You of all people should know what a big deal going outside the chain-of-command can be.
                But partisan prejudice over-rides procedure propriety ...
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                  But partisan prejudice over-rides procedure propriety ...
                  More like a political agenda...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                    Shouldn't the whistle-blower have approached not congressional staffers, but his own agency's inspector-general, if all he was seeking was "procedural advice"? You of all people should know what a big deal going outside the chain-of-command can be.
                    Excellent point.
                    If he went out of the chain of command, then he really isn't a "whistleblower" after all.

                    He is a leaker and they aren't entitled to any protections.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                      Excellent point.
                      If he went out of the chain of command, then he really isn't a "whistleblower" after all.

                      He is a leaker and they aren't entitled to any protections.
                      Maybe . . . . Maybe . . . .

                      Virtually all Federal agencies -- uniformed and civilian alike -- are mandated by law to provide avenues for whistleblowers. I'm guessing that, for most agencies, those avenues go through the various IGs, though I can easily be wrong about that. Nevertheless, I can't imagine that congressional staffers were ever thought the appropriate venue for whistleblower complaints. Not ever.
                      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                        Excellent point.
                        If he went out of the chain of command, then he really isn't a "whistleblower" after all.

                        He is a leaker and they aren't entitled to any protections.
                        That's my understanding as well. If "he" is "whistle-blowing" about something within his agency of employment, the CIA, he would be "protected", but when his complaints focus outside of his 'agency of employment' than it's just another citizen venting a bitch.

                        BTW, wasn't "his" name revealed weeks ago and all this just old news being rehashed???
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                          Maybe . . . . Maybe . . . .

                          Virtually all Federal agencies -- uniformed and civilian alike -- are mandated by law to provide avenues for whistleblowers. I'm guessing that, for most agencies, those avenues go through the various IGs, though I can easily be wrong about that. Nevertheless, I can't imagine that congressional staffers were ever thought the appropriate venue for whistleblower complaints. Not ever.
                          The difficulty is the discouragement of future whistleblowers
                          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                            That's my understanding as well. If "he" is "whistle-blowing" about something within his agency of employment, the CIA, he would be "protected", but when his complaints focus outside of his 'agency of employment' than it's just another citizen venting a bitch.

                            BTW, wasn't "his" name revealed weeks ago and all this just old news being rehashed???
                            AFAIK Yes but a number of left wing news sites (I.e. buzzfeed) have been trying to cover it up, Youtubers & twitter users have been temp banned just for saying it on their sites. In the guise of he's a whistle blower and thus protected...

                            But the Accused dose have the right to know who is responsible for this impeachment...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                              The difficulty is the discouragement of future whistleblowers
                              Maybe . . . . Maybe . . . . . I think the question here is, did this guy choose the congressional staffers 'cause he didn't know any better, or because he had some kind of political axe to grind?
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X