The Agonizing Predicament of the Scarcely Protected Whistleblower

[imported_tajmahal]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)
influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2)cause or induce any personto—
(A)
withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B)
alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C)
evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D)
be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3)
hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

So is making sure they are telling the truth and being accurate considered "intimidation"?

 

[UNCjigga]

However the Justice Department found that no crime had been committed.

No. The Justice Department claimed it did not rise to the level of “urgent” concern, and that the “favor” asked by Trump was “not a thing of value” and thus did not constitute a campaign finance violation. They did not consider federal corruption statutes, due process violations or any number of other issues raised by the call. They also didn’t investigate further—no interviews with WH officials etc.

Of course, by then DOJ was fully aware that AG Barr had been implicated by Trump in the call transcript and by the whistleblower complaint...so take anything from DOJ with a grain of salt.

 

[interchange]

So is making sure they are telling the truth and being accurate considered "intimidation"?

Trying to unmask the identity of a person whose identity is shielded by law and threatening "big consequences" certainly is.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Trying to unmask the identity of a person whose identity is shielded by law and threatening "big consequences" certainly is.

"shielded by law" is still under dispute

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Thanks you for this, from your link:
" In order to show a substantial likelihood of wrongdoing under the Whistleblower Protection Act, you must provide reliable, first-hand knowledge of the misconduct. Speculation or second-hand information is not enough. You also cannot make the disclosure anonymously, although you can request that the OSC keep your identity confidential. "

"REQUEST" and of course "FIRSTHAND"

Per the transcript the AG(?) release the whistleblower has first hand knowledge of some event(s) and mentioned having second hand knowledge of other event(s)
Also the Presidents own released partial transcript proved one of the points.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So is making sure they are telling the truth and being accurate considered "intimidation"?

Trump seeks to put the whistleblower in mortal danger by having access to something under the law he is not entitled to and that is knowing "all about the whistleblower". No, he is not allowed that, even the god-emperor Trump.

Telling the truth and being accurate and perhaps die as a result of Trump's desired but illegal exposure.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"shielded by law" is still under dispute

By Trump.

 

[interchange]

No. The Justice Department claimed it did not rise to the level of “urgent” concern, and that the “favor” asked by Trump was “not a thing of value” and thus did not constitute a campaign finance violation. They did not consider federal corruption statutes, due process violations or any number of other issues raised by the call. They also didn’t investigate further—no interviews with WH officials etc.

Of course, by then DOJ was fully aware that AG Barr had been implicated by Trump in the call transcript and by the whistleblower complaint...so take anything from DOJ with a grain of salt.

Yeah when someone is implicated in a crime and they act to prevent that information from being released, it's called obstruction. There could be no role for the justice department reviewing this unless there was careful action to sanitize Barr from the decision.

 

[Chromagnus]

Arguing about the whistle blower is just a way for the White House to try and stir up a controversy. When the WH released the transcript* of the call they verified that the information in the complaint was accurate. They can't make a good argument that what they did wasn't wrong so they are trying to make the story about the whistle blower and attack them.

This thread seems to be about whistle blowers in general, whom I agree, are offered very little real protection against retaliation.

*Not truly a transcript

 

[akenbennu]

Thanks you for this, from your link:
" In order to show a substantial likelihood of wrongdoing under the Whistleblower Protection Act, you must provide reliable, first-hand knowledge of the misconduct. Speculation or second-hand information is not enough. You also cannot make the disclosure anonymously, although you can request that the OSC keep your identity confidential. "

"REQUEST" and of course "FIRSTHAND"

"The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," the statement read. "The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. "

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Trump seeks to put the whistleblower in mortal danger by having access to something under the law he is not entitled to and that is knowing "all about the whistleblower". No, he is not allowed that, even the god-emperor Trump.

Telling the truth and being accurate and perhaps die as a result of Trump's desired but illegal exposure.

"mortal danger"
"god-emperor"
"perhaps die"
"illegal exposure"
Thanks for your input.

Never mind. It's time to back out of this thread. Thanks folks.

 

[interchange]

"shielded by law" is still under dispute

I don't think there's a valid legal claim against it, but it doesn't actually matter. Do you contend that Trump is not trying to intimidate the whistleblower here?

 

[Chromagnus]

Back to the general topic about whistle blowers. I can't remember where exactly I saw it but there was an article shortly after this started to come out that basically made the argument that this is a good example that vindicates Snowden for circumventing normal whistle blower protocol.

The fact that this whistle blower was largely ignored and had to go to extra lengths to get this out there shows that there are flaws in the system. The person who did this complaint has a background in intelligence and obviously knew the exact protocol that they should be following and they were still nearly suppressed. How easy would it have been for the government to suppress a whistle blower case brought by Snowden that probably wouldn't have followed the process nearly as meticulously given that he didn't have the same background as this CIA whistle blower?

You could make the argument that Snowden should have tried to do the formal process first but had he done it that way it may have become impossible for him to get any of the proof out before he was fired for the initial complaint.

 

[Ajay]

^^^ Makes what Trump is doing trying to demonize and out this current brave soul all the more dangerous and disgusting.

Shocking huh? Traitors should be hung, etc, etc.

Edit spelling, duh.

 

[interchange]

Back to the general topic about whistle blowers. I can't remember where exactly I saw it but there was an article shortly after this started to come out that basically made the argument that this is a good example that vindicates Snowden for circumventing normal whistle blower protocol.

The fact that this whistle blower was largely ignored and had to go to extra lengths to get this out there shows that there are flaws in the system. The person who did this complaint has a background in intelligence and obviously knew the exact protocol that they should be following and they were still nearly suppressed. How easy would it have been for the government to suppress a whistle blower case brought by Snowden that probably wouldn't have followed the process nearly as meticulously given that he didn't have the same background as this CIA whistle blower?

You could make the argument that Snowden should have tried to do the formal process first but had he done it that way it may have become impossible for him to get any of the proof out before he was fired for the initial complaint.

To me, this is an argument that we need to strengthen significantly our whistleblower protections. Problem with Snowden is that he controls what apparent intelligence impropriety is released, when, and how. Whether or not he has corrupt intent, the is clear evidence that he has serious bias.

 

[Chromagnus]

To me, this is an argument that we need to strengthen significantly our whistleblower protections. Problem with Snowden is that he controls what apparent intelligence impropriety is released, when, and how. Whether or not he has corrupt intent, the is clear evidence that he has serious bias.

Totally agree. The fact that this recent situation can be seen as an argument for circumventing the normal system shows how bad the current system is.

 

[dainthomas]

Where does it say that they can't be identified or questioned by anyone they accuse? I can see where they can't be retaliated against, but questioned? identified? testify in public? under oath?

Whistleblower protection law probably. Unless you want no one to ever divulge information about (alleged) criminals because their entire family would be stuffed into barrels and dropped in a river.

I could definitely see how someone who supports a president who refers to people as 'rats' would hate protections for witnesses.

 

[HomerJS]

All this alleged whistleblower did is supply hearsay. None of his/her information was first hand knowledge. You make the huge jump that the accused is a criminal and do it without proof, evidence or witnesses.

The IG informed us the whistleblower has more then just hearsay

AP FACT CHECK: Trump's fiction about whistleblower complaint | AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and his GOP allies are making groundless accusations that a whistleblower complaint by a CIA officer was improperly filed because it was not based on first-hand knowledge.

www.apnews.com

 

[fskimospy]

All this alleged whistleblower did is supply hearsay. None of his/her information was first hand knowledge. You make the huge jump that the accused is a criminal and do it without proof, evidence or witnesses.

The president literally released a document that confirmed the central allegation.

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks you for this, from your link:
" In order to show a substantial likelihood of wrongdoing under the Whistleblower Protection Act, you must provide reliable, first-hand knowledge of the misconduct. Speculation or second-hand information is not enough. You also cannot make the disclosure anonymously, although you can request that the OSC keep your identity confidential. "

"REQUEST" and of course "FIRSTHAND"

This is false.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/30/trumps-false-claim-rules-whistleblowers-were-recently-changed/

ICD 120 sets a “reasonable belief” standard for reporting wrongdoing through protected disclosures “that the employee reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”

A “reasonable belief” covers information obtained secondhand, according to Irvin McCullough, a national security analyst at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, and other experts consulted by The Fact Checker. “As a whistleblower, you can always submit a complaint if you have a reasonable belief, even if it is secondhand or even third-hand,” McCullough said.

 

[dank69]

I think you're stretching way too far on this.
Of course the whistleblower is an accuser.

No.

 

[HomerJS]

No. The Justice Department claimed it did not rise to the level of “urgent” concern, and that the “favor” asked by Trump was “not a thing of value” and thus did not constitute a campaign finance violation. They did not consider federal corruption statutes, due process violations or any number of other issues raised by the call. They also didn’t investigate further—no interviews with WH officials etc.

Of course, by then DOJ was fully aware that AG Barr had been implicated by Trump in the call transcript and by the whistleblower complaint...so take anything from DOJ with a grain of salt.

How can this kind of information not be considered a "thing of value" since many pay big money to firms that do this research?

 

[dank69]

So is making sure they are telling the truth and being accurate considered "intimidation"?

You don't need to know who is making a claim to determine if it is accurate.

 

[dank69]

"mortal danger"
"god-emperor"
"perhaps die"
"illegal exposure"
Thanks for your input.

Never mind. It's time to back out of this thread. Thanks folks.

Good idea. The only people capable of killing their political enemies are the Clintons. Everyone knows this. Is Trump a Clinton? No? Not guilty!

 

[JTsyo]

Think we're all falling for the Bullshit asymmetry principle. imported is just throwing out BS and we're spending time to refute it with no effect on his point of view.