• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anyone with a logical reason for outing the whistleblower other than to punish him?

code1211 said:
The "Whistle Blower" relayed a rumor.
Click to expand...
Which was then investigated by the IG and later verified by other individuals who were part of the phone call.


Now this Schiff Show is trying to impeach a President using this unfounded, unsourced, untrue bag of steaming crap.

(deleted rant)
Click to expand...


Only in the minds of those who listen to el Rushbo, those who see Sean Hannity as a reliable source and believe Laura Ingraham doesn't lie her face off on every show.

It does look like the Trumpites have truly come to believe every word that comes out of the White House and that they read on the president's Twitter account. Sad.
 
Acadia said:
You would think, that with highly-trained and qualified appointees directly privy to the call, would have come forward. Instead, a dupe was chosen to feed bits and pieces of information to. Fed by people who were "visibly shaken the NEXT DAY", yet weren't shaken enough to come forward themselves.
Then Schiff gets wind and joins up with the WB via his staff, and we're off to the races.

Think about it. An act or actions SO grievous that a President could be removed from office, and NOT ONE PERSON with direct knowledge came forward.
Click to expand...

Of course not, because it's all total bull****.
 
justabubba said:
the whistleblower is entitled to anonymity under the law. i thought you might understand that reality
Click to expand...

He is not. That's another lie the left keeps repeating. The only thing the WB is guaranteed is not to suffer retribution by being fired. He is NOT guaranteed anonymity.
 
justabubba said:
and we have a tRump appointed ambassador who has affirmed the very wrongdoing that the whistleblower reported

what the voters know to be rotten is the activity emanating from the white house. tRump is so innocent he refuses to allow staff to testify. yea, that rotten
Click to expand...

Yavanovitch took her post in Ukraine in August 2016. So, not appointed by Trump. She also pointedly failed to affirm any wrongdoing and, in fact, specifically said no when asked if she had any evidence of crimes.
 
independentusa said:
Are you really that uninformed? The WB has not direct knowledge of the events and even if he testified, as both Trump and the GOP have said, it would all be hearsay. He would be no kind of witness. If you were informed you would know he was TOLD by others who had heard the conversation on what went on with the trump call to Unkraine and thought that there was something wrong going on and reported it to the IG. It was the IG that actually investigated and found it to be true and who determined it was an urgent matter. So how the hell did you determine that the WB would be a star witness? So other than to out the WB so he could be punished, what reason is there to learn the WB's name? I can tell you NONE.
Click to expand...

The WB should reveal who supposedly passed him his information so THEY can be brought forward to testify. We do not know who passed what to the WB. Why? Because Schifty and crew know the WB has no credibility and so they hide him from the public. If the people passing him the info were so disturbed then they should have made the WB complaint. The whole thing is a complete fraud.
 
veritas1 said:
He is not. That's another lie the left keeps repeating. The only thing the WB is guaranteed is not to suffer retribution by being fired. He is NOT guaranteed anonymity.
Click to expand...
How are whistleblowers’ anonymity protected?

As noted above, whistleblowers are entitled to their anonymity as several whistleblower protections laws include clauses to protect whistleblower identities and guarantee confidentiality.

Both the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) and the Inspector General Act state that a whistleblower’s identity must be protected unless the employee making the disclosure consents to disclosing their identity. The Inspector General Act states:

(h) The identity of any individual who makes a disclosure described in subsection (a) may not be disclosed by the Special Counsel without such individual’s consent unless the Special Counsel determines that the disclosure of the individual’s identity is necessary because of an imminent danger to public health or safety or imminent violation of any criminal law.

Additionally, the Inspector General Act mandates the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) must protect whistleblower confidentiality only disclosing it in the same manner as required by the WPA. This act also prohibits retaliation based upon whistleblowers disclosures to the OIG. While the WPA does not explicitly cover intelligence community whistleblowers, the Inspector General Act does after amendments from the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA).

Anonymity protection provisions are not only detailed in laws pertaining to whistleblowers. Many government-wide laws apply to the cases of whistleblower disclosures and protections, such as the Privacy Act of 1974. The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a prevents any disclosure of the personal information of a government employee without their consent. This clause would prohibit any government or agency official, even the President, from releasing the identity of an employee, whistleblowers included. If violated, civil and criminal penalties would apply to those exposing the identities of government employees.

Retaining the right to confidentiality and anonymity are critical not only for the safety of whistleblowers, but also for the security of the whistleblowing process. Congress delineated these provisions to protect whistleblowers from reprisals in the forms of damages to reputation, loss of career, threats on livelihood, etc.

Under these protections, whistleblowers are entitled to their anonymity. All government officials and employees, even those in the Office of the President, must abide by these protections to guarantee the safety of whistleblowers.
Click to expand...
The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center
 
veritas1 said:
The WB should reveal who supposedly passed him his information so THEY can be brought forward to testify. We do not know who passed what to the WB. Why? Because Schifty and crew know the WB has no credibility and so they hide him from the public. If the people passing him the info were so disturbed then they should have made the WB complaint. The whole thing is a complete fraud.
Click to expand...

the whistleblower has no credibility you insist! then show us what the whistleblower has presented which has not been now confirmed by other sources
 
justabubba said:
The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center
Click to expand...


And most all those laws apply to what were always considered to be legitimate WB's, IOW, people with eyewitness accounts. Prior to this latest guy, secondhand evidence wasn't even considered. If this guy says that he was passed information from firsthand sources then he should be required to reveal who they are so those people can testify. Of course, Schiff stifles all that because the whole thing has been manufactured from the get go. That why secrecy is vital. Transparency will unravel the scam.
 
justabubba said:
the whistleblower has no credibility you insist! then show us what the whistleblower has presented which has not been now confirmed by other sources
Click to expand...


Nothing has been confirmed, certainly not based on the first two days of the public clown show.
 
veritas1 said:
And most all those laws apply to what were always considered to be legitimate WB's, IOW, people with eyewitness accounts. Prior to this latest guy, secondhand evidence wasn't even considered. If this guy says that he was passed information from firsthand sources then he should be required to reveal who they are so those people can testify. Of course, Schiff stifles all that because the whole thing has been manufactured from the get go. That why secrecy is vital. Transparency will unravel the scam.
Click to expand...

i missed the exceptions you cited when reading the law. would you please point to the portion of the federal statute which exempts whistleblowers from anonymity whose testimony is not based on first-hand knowledge
 
veritas1 said:
Nothing has been confirmed, certainly not based on the first two days of the public clown show.
Click to expand...

then you continue to believe that tRump withheld the $391 million in ukrainian aid just because

you continue to believe the corruption that tRump wanted the new ukrainian president was joe biden's son's board seat and it just so happened to be the son of his likely opponent in the next presidential election

yea, speak to us now about anyone's credibility as yours has been sacrificed in the defense of the indefensible
 
veritas1 said:
He is not. That's another lie the left keeps repeating. The only thing the WB is guaranteed is not to suffer retribution by being fired. He is NOT guaranteed anonymity.
Click to expand...

That lie has been fully Goebbelsed.
 
veritas1 said:
Nothing has been confirmed, certainly not based on the first two days of the public clown show.
Click to expand...

What's been confirmed is that Obama's WH knew about Hunter Biden being installed on the board of Burisma, and it was a problem. Yovanovich was FULLY aware and coached on how to respond to questioning concerning the VP's son making a crap ton of money from a crooked company in Ukraine, where his father was point person.
Also, Yovanovich lied under oath, and that should be followed up Manfort style, or Flynn style.
 
Acadia said:
What's been confirmed is that Obama's WH knew about Hunter Biden being installed on the board of Burisma, and it was a problem. Yovanovich was FULLY aware and coached on how to respond to questioning concerning the VP's son making a crap ton of money from a crooked company in Ukraine, where his father was point person.
Also, Yovanovich lied under oath, and that should be followed up Manfort style, or Flynn style.
Click to expand...

Dems and their fellow travellers can lie and commit crimes with impunity. It's why Manafort is in prison and Tony Podesta isn't. It's why Stone is facing 50 years while a congenital liar like Schiff heads up the coup attempt against Trump. It's why Comey, McCabe, Brennan and Hillary get a free pass on everything they do. One can only hope that, once the IG and Durham reports come out, that finally at least a tiny bit of justice will prevail.
 
veritas1 said:
Dems and their fellow travellers can lie and commit crimes with impunity. It's why Manafort is in prison and Tony Podesta isn't. It's why Stone is facing 50 years while a congenital liar like Schiff heads up the coup attempt against Trump. It's why Comey, McCabe, Brennan and Hillary get a free pass on everything they do. One can only hope that, once the IG and Durham reports come out, that finally at least a tiny bit of justice will prevail.
Click to expand...

If they're getting a pass, it's from this administration. Democrats don't run the DOJ.
 
veritas1 said:
Dems and their fellow travellers can lie and commit crimes with impunity. It's why Manafort is in prison and Tony Podesta isn't. It's why Stone is facing 50 years while a congenital liar like Schiff heads up the coup attempt against Trump. It's why Comey, McCabe, Brennan and Hillary get a free pass on everything they do. One can only hope that, once the IG and Durham reports come out, that finally at least a tiny bit of justice will prevail.
Click to expand...

I've all but lost hope on that count.
 
veritas1 said:
The WB should reveal who supposedly passed him his information so THEY can be brought forward to testify. We do not know who passed what to the WB. Why? Because Schifty and crew know the WB has no credibility and so they hide him from the public. If the people passing him the info were so disturbed then they should have made the WB complaint. The whole thing is a complete fraud.
Click to expand...

Your message is a complete fraud.
 
veritas1 said:
And most all those laws apply to what were always considered to be legitimate WB's, IOW, people with eyewitness accounts. Prior to this latest guy, secondhand evidence wasn't even considered. If this guy says that he was passed information from firsthand sources then he should be required to reveal who they are so those people can testify. Of course, Schiff stifles all that because the whole thing has been manufactured from the get go. That why secrecy is vital. Transparency will unravel the scam.
Click to expand...

Is there anything in the law that says what you are suggesting? No,that is because they wanted anyone who "knew" of wrong doing to come forward and have it investigated. That is what this WB did and the information has now been verified. try another tack as that is not working.
 
veritas1 said:
Dems and their fellow travellers can lie and commit crimes with impunity. It's why Manafort is in prison and Tony Podesta isn't. It's why Stone is facing 50 years while a congenital liar like Schiff heads up the coup attempt against Trump. It's why Comey, McCabe, Brennan and Hillary get a free pass on everything they do. One can only hope that, once the IG and Durham reports come out, that finally at least a tiny bit of justice will prevail.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes and we know Obama was born in Kenya. And again you use deflection, not good. The only one's on this message board who still use deflection are those with no logical argument and try to say, do not look here, look over there.
 
Acadia said:
I've all but lost hope on that count.
Click to expand...

The problem is whatever his "report" shows, will be full of innuendos and half if not total untruths as like the rest of the Trump people he will do as he is told and come up with something to take Putin and trump off the hot seat.
 
Somerville said:
Which was then investigated by the IG and later verified by other individuals who were part of the phone call.









Only in the minds of those who listen to el Rushbo, those who see Sean Hannity as a reliable source and believe Laura Ingraham doesn't lie her face off on every show.

It does look like the Trumpites have truly come to believe every word that comes out of the White House and that they read on the president's Twitter account. Sad.
Click to expand...

And yet there's still no evidence of anything that the Democrat-Socialists postulate.

Breitbart quotes WaPo reporting that the Democrat-Socialists are now using focus groups to decide what label to paste on the coup. If there was an actual crime, seems like they'd use the actual crime.

This is beyond comedy at this point. How delusional do the Democrat-Socialist faithful need to be to accept this PR Campaign?

Still no evidence, still no testimony and still no crime except the one that the focus groups indicate that they wish was there to find.

Of course, this isn't much different from what the Obama Justice Department and his intelligence agencies did so, there's that...

Nolte: Democrats Using Focus Groups to Pick Trump Impeachment Crime

In passing, Trump is polling at about the same levels as always. Biden is dropping like a stone in a pond. Iowa 15%? Wow! The people are speaking. Can you hear them?
 
code1211 said:
And yet there's still no evidence of anything that the Democrat-Socialists postulate.

Breitbart quotes WaPo reporting that the Democrat-Socialists are now using focus groups to decide what label to paste on the coup. If there was an actual crime, seems like they'd use the actual crime.

This is beyond comedy at this point. How delusional do the Democrat-Socialist faithful need to be to accept this PR Campaign?

Still no evidence, still no testimony and still no crime except the one that the focus groups indicate that they wish was there to find.

Of course, this isn't much different from what the Obama Justice Department and his intelligence agencies did so, there's that...

Nolte: Democrats Using Focus Groups to Pick Trump Impeachment Crime

In passing, Trump is polling at about the same levels as always. Biden is dropping like a stone in a pond. Iowa 15%? Wow! The people are speaking. Can you hear them?
Click to expand...

Nice headline on the article from the ever so reliable Breitbart. :roll:

"No testimony"? Seriously? What universe are you hiding in?

When a hack calls the Washington Post "far left", the rational person will go "Woah!" and after reading any such writer's words will either search for verification or decide never to read such crap in the future as it has the potential to cause brain damage.

Yep, Trump continues to poll below 42% approval with 47% in favor of impeachment.

Biden and Sanders - two old white guys - are tied at 15% approval in one Iowa poll, while the same poll has the gay fellow with 25%, followed by the woman at 16%. What will the bigots do?
 
apdst said:
The people have a right to hear him testify.
Click to expand...

We are hearing his testimony, through various others, all calm, collected, professionals, giving testimony that corroborates the initial WB report.

The calm, collected professionals are making the ranting lunatic republicans look like bullies and fools.
 
code1211 said:
And yet there's still no evidence of anything that the Democrat-Socialists postulate.

Breitbart quotes WaPo reporting that the Democrat-Socialists are now using focus groups to decide what label to paste on the coup. If there was an actual crime, seems like they'd use the actual crime.

This is beyond comedy at this point. How delusional do the Democrat-Socialist faithful need to be to accept this PR Campaign?

Still no evidence, still no testimony and still no crime except the one that the focus groups indicate that they wish was there to find.

Of course, this isn't much different from what the Obama Justice Department and his intelligence agencies did so, there's that...

Nolte: Democrats Using Focus Groups to Pick Trump Impeachment Crime

In passing, Trump is polling at about the same levels as always. Biden is dropping like a stone in a pond. Iowa 15%? Wow! The people are speaking. Can you hear them?
Click to expand...
not surprising you would criticize the use of analysis to help steer a process in the correct direction
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom