Trump whistleblower complaint

[_Smokey]

He’s a whistle blower alright.

[_Maksutov]

He’s a whistle blower all right.

Here, you seem to be having trouble understanding something. I guess I have to repeat it again:




WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WILLIAM TAYLOR

[_canpakes]

Not swift enough to figure out that what the whistleblower said has been confirmed by Trump’s own men, yes? Quid pro quo is quid pro quo.

The channer crowd has been owned by Ciaramella and Trump’s own team.

[_Icarus]

Why did they hide his identity for so long?

Why is it being censored all over the Internet?

Because it is unethical to out someone whose identity is protected by law.

Obeying the law. Hmm. Foreign concept to Republicans, I know.

[_EAllusion]

The contents of the whistle-blower complaint have been extensively corrobrated.

See here:

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/09/77617349 ... -heres-how

At this point, it doesn't matter if the anonymous tipster was Hillary Clinton in a mustache. The tips were true.

[_EAllusion]

Whistleblowers' anonymity are protected so they do not have to fear reprisal and others are not discouraged from also coming forward for fear of the same. The law is the law for a reason.

Conversely, the reason Trumplandia is so desperate to out the whistle-blower is to to 1) try to ad hominem up the complaint by attacking the whistleblower's character and motives even though those are irrelevant at this point 2) subject the whistleblower to threat of harm and 3) discourage other whistleblowers lest the same happen to them.

[_Smokey]

Remember when the Democratic Party outed that whistleblower dude during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings?

[_Res Ipsa]

Remember when the Democratic Party outed that whistleblower dude during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings?

Nope. And neither do you.

Feinstein denied that she or her staff leaked Blasey Ford's identity. The reporter to whom the identity was leaked confirmed that the did not receive the information from Feinstein or her staff. Blasey Ford stated that she had told several friends about sending the letter. That's what we know. It may very well be that the person who leaked the information considered him or herself a Democrat, but there is zero evidence that the "Democratic Party" outed her.

This is the old false equivalence gambit that has become absolutely predictable from the right. The person who leaked Blasey-Ford's identity was absolutely wrong for doing so, as it was clear at the time of the leak that she wanted her identity to stay confidential. If it were a staffer, he or she should have been fired. If it were Feinstein, she should have been reprimanded or censured. But it is important to note that it is extremely unlikely that the leaker was motivated by a desire to attack and destroy her personally. Had her identity been kept confidential, but the allegations been made public, you'd have seen the Right do just what they are doing now with the whistleblower -- demanding to know the identity for the express purpose of attacking and personally destroying that individual. In other words, in both cases the identity of the "whistleblower" was important to the right so that they could personally intimidate and punish the person for coming forward.

It is fascinating to me to see the political right, which has for my entire life been suspicious of government to the point of paranoia, suddenly reverse course and seek to mercilessly attack and personally destroy anyone who provides information about potential wrongdoing in the Trump government. If anyone should be in favor of protecting government whistleblowers, it should be the people who don't trust government.

Heck, I'm pretty darn liberal, and I think whistleblower protection for government employees is an essential check on government corruption. We should encourage government employees who see illegal activity or abuse of power to report those activities. And the only way to encourage that reporting is to protect he employee from retaliation by his or her boss or others up the chain of command. The best way to do that is to provide a method for a government employee to come forward and report anonymously. The merits of the report can then be evaluated through an investigation of the facts.

The status of the current whistleblower as government employee is, of course, a critical difference between the whistleblower and Blasey Ford. There is no law that protects Blasey-Ford's identity, because Justice Kavanaugh isn't in a position to directly retaliate against her as Trump or other government official would be with respect to an employee in the executive branch.

If the whistleblower statute is respected and followed, the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant information unless the whistleblower's testimony would be the only possible relevant evidence. In the present case, the whistleblower is not the only source of evidence. In fact, he or she isn't the best source of evidence -- by a long ways. Whether the whistleblower is a republican or democrat, which presidents he or she worked under, who appointed him or her, or whether he or she is a Jew is 100% irrelevant to the merits of claims against Donald Trump. It's a red herring to distract from the merits of the claims and to personally punish the whistleblower to discourage any other witnesses to wrongdoing by the Trump government from coming forward. Smokey is openly advocating for corruption in government. Such a weird thing for a political philosophy that supposedly distrusts government.

[_MeDotOrg]

A man is murdered. A confidential informant that tells the police that a man named Jesus Morales is responsible for the murder. The information that he gives is corroborated and even augmented by the testimony of additional witnesses.

Later it comes out that the confidential informant is a racist who hates Mexicans. If the case against Morales is no longer dependent upon the original information from the confidential informant, does the state no longer have a case, or can the case proceed because of other sources?

If you are going to say the case against Morales has been tainted by the racism of the original informant, you are saying that the facts of the case don't matter, as long as one of the persons making accusations is a racist.

There's an old joke : just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you. And just because you hate Mexicans doesn't mean a Mexican is incapable of murder. Ultimately the perception of the original informant means nothing in the face of the facts of the case.

With respect to the facts of the Trump case, whether or not the whistle-blower is a member of the deep state or a Trump hating Democrat does not matter, as long as the facts of the case are corroborated by other sources. The whistle-blower statute exists so that people who blow the whistle are not subject to reprisals. If the evidence has been corroborated not only by hearsay but also by witnesses who witnessed the events in question, what difference does the whistle-blower make?

[_canpakes]

It is fascinating to me to see the political right, which has for my entire life been suspicious of government to the point of paranoia, suddenly reverse course and seek to mercilessly attack and personally destroy anyone who provides information about potential wrongdoing in the Trump government. If anyone should be in favor of protecting government whistleblowers, it should be the people who don't trust government.

I get the feeling that these are folks who only ‘distrust government’ as far as not getting precisely what they want, which many times would otherwise require - in their eyes - government protecting their right to discriminate or deny rights and services to others that they’re otherwise happy to use themselves. The fact that government doesn’t cater solely to their whims in order to protect their opinion or project their faith is the issue. Otherwise, they’re fine with supporting any amount of government, even if acting via lawless means, that achieves their objectives.

Theirs is not an honest or moral position.