It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dem introduces bill to protect White House whistleblowers

page: 2
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Would this law have kept the Clintons from murdering Seth Rich? I guess they would have said well we WANTED to punish him, but it’s agaisnt the law.




posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: Grambler

#1 i am not personally attacking you, it just (clearly) feels that way to you because you are invested in your opinion and thus are defending attacks on it, you are not your opinions, they are separate from you, an attack on them is not an attack on you, accept that and you'll find the truth becomes easier to discern.


From your post

" how clueless you are" "where is your reasoning skills, your logic" "how delusional."




#2 your thread is about free speech and not censoring people yet you are trying to label my posts as attacks for the very specific purpose of trying to get them censored. how ironic.


Show me were I tried to censor you? So now pointing out that you are flat out making up things I said and attacking me for them is censorship. Wow.


#3 the NDA did not prevent the informant at all, it merely frightened him into silence for a time due to the same ignorance you are operating on with this thread topic. it also forced them to determine that what he is reporting on was actually a crime, which was their due diligence regardless of the nda, thus it did not effect the case the way you think it did.



Of course he was eventually allowed to talk, but not until after the election. The threat of the NDA was suuficient to stop him from speaking until it was conevenient.


eta: btw, this "One-upmanship" you are trying to apply to your perceived hostilities just makes you look petty and small minded.

the issue at hand is not your feelings or who can hurt whos,

its nda's and there effects on reporting crimes, which is nothing, no effect at all, the topic itself then is moot.


I thibnk your intial post with the quotes I showed made you look small minded, so I guess we are even.

The topic is not moot, because the bill is being pushed forth, and it shows that it is merely poltiocal partisanship, which was the point of the topic.

But i love the effort; come in to a thread, say the OP is saying something that they never said, argue against it, and say the topic is moot. Great job!



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I'd love to think we already protect whistleblowers. It saddens me to see that they want to limit it to only Trump. As I recall, we had Snowden and Manning both blow the whistle on programs that are, as we are seeing today, of a very dubious legal and moral nature.

Neither should have faced repercussions, and until we have protections for people like them, Ill see this as pure partisan horsecrap.



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Where was this move nine years ago??



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   
This is grandstanding. The Constitution and the ACLU already have president baby hand's bull# NDAs covered.
A gov employee works for the gov, not for their boss. WH staffers work for Americans, not for Trump. He thinks the WH is but an extension of trump tower where even the cleaning staff has to sign NDAs.



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   
LOCK HIM UP. Trump LOCK HIM UP. Man that feels good. Our man and favorite conservative republican ,Mueller, is going to do just that. THE END IS NEAR



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


... The threat of the NDA was suuficient to stop him from speaking until it was conevenient.


im not gonna waste my time bickering with you over all that other meaningless nonsense you are making up and feel like wasting your time on.

the NDA did not prevent him, once again, it was his ignorance of the NDA's reach (or lack of) that effected him, that is not the fault of an NDA rather that is the fault of his own ignorance, trying to correlate the two is foolish. and its your entire thread.

you can stop trying to pretend thats not the point of the thread "tear up the ndas" is right there in your OP, so its not something you can backpedal on.
edit on 21-3-2018 by NobodiesNormal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: hoss53

What?



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
LOL I'm surprised Democrats would introduce or sponsor anything with the word "White" in it.

Damn racist whistleblowers.



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The article doesn't say if the bill would cover all administrations -- past as well as present. If it does cover all administrations' NDAs, then I'd like to see it pass. If it only covers Trump, then yeah, it's just political.

This is what worries me:

"My legislation would clarify that any non-disclosure agreements signed by White House employees do not cover actions protected by federal whistleblower law."


Those whistleblower laws themselves protect wrongdoing. You noted the witness not allowed to tell Congress about wrongdoings with regard to Russia and Uranium One... There was also the CDC whistleblower who claimed that the CDC was destroying and covering up evidence that vaccinations were linked to higher autism rates in Black boys. There are others. If folks want to blow the whistle, they have to get permission, and they have to blow the whistle to only certain people, and other ways the truth is kept from the public. It doesn't do us any good if crimes are being committed and someone's blowing the whistle in an empty room...

I should also note that not everything considered "legal" by the critters is considered morally or ethically proper by the people. They've already decided that it's okay for some people to lie to the public... just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Note that part of McCabe's problem right now isn't that he leaked a story about a classified investigation... it was "legal." His only problem now is that he lied to investigators about it. I believe Brennan as well leaked a story, then publicly stated how reprehensible it was and how it threatened our national security... and it was all "legal."

We have no idea what all is really going on. And these NDAs are a big part of the problem.



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Why not just expand it to help all whistle blower. Why only the white house? Are they afraid of organization like Wikileaks?



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

This should be the new norm - whistleblowers get protected from Clintonesque-style coincidental death, but they also get exposed - that way, if we're gonna go there, then taxpayers should be provided the names of those whom their dollars go towards protecting.

Like Snowden - we all know his name, his employment position and what he blew the whistle on.

Worth considering - we could start with the names of the leakers from the WH this past 18 months who syphoned stuff to the MSM, which was subsequently provided for public consumption without nary a murmur.

Protect them, then expose them.

Unfortunately, the government carries out both the 'Clintonesque-style coincidental death' and the 'protection' and controls the 'exposing' so you see what is actually going on here.....



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

Except it's 100% partisan because they don't care about Dem NDA only Trump's.




top topics



 
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join