Schumer's 74 Letters - Chuck Just Made it Worse for Them

This is why I say all the time NO MERCY with these scumbags. Chuck taking the lead of the gang with another stupidity that will cost more time and money.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is asking that every agency inspector general investigate retaliation against whistleblowers who report presidential misconduct, after the firing of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council.

Schumer’s letters to 74 inspectors general, which will be sent Monday, comes after Vindman, a star witness in the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, was removed from his position at the White House on Friday, along with his twin, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, an ethics lawyer at the NSC.

Both brothers are active-duty Army officers and were reassigned to the Pentagon.

I think he sent a letter to General Fine because he was nominated by Obama.

In a letter to Acting Inspector General Glenn Fine at the Defense Department, Schumer described the NSC firings as “part of a dangerous, growing pattern of retaliation against those who report wrongdoing only to find themselves targeted by the President and subject to his wrath and vindictiveness.”

But Fine doesn't seem to be biased at all. He actually investigated James Baker. Looks like Chucky just screwed thing even more for democrats, as expected

And yeah, at least one Clinton was connected to the mess.

The Pentagon Inspector General, Glenn Fine, has opened an investigation on James Baker, the director of the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment (ONA). Baker is a holdover from the Obama era and the investigation will probe charges that he is retaliating against a whistleblower.

Adam Lovinger is a senior ONA official and sources say he warned consultants about “rigged” contracts within the ONA. This included politically-connected deal such as one that Lovinger disclosed with a contractor who Chelsea Clinton has called her “best friend.”

Whistleblowers are protected under Presidential Policy Directive-19. It specifically states that it “prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse.”

And democrats have the face to talk about retaliation of whistleblowers now ???

www.rawstory.com...
www.politico.com...
conservativedailypost.com...

a reply to: Trueman

I do think that something should be done to limit retaliation against whistle-blowers. This could set a dangerous precident if not.

a reply to: Trueman

The devil made him do it!

I think Trump has EVERY right as President to remove anyone working against his policies, especially people who weren't voted into their public office roles, but were merely placed there by the past administration to work against President Trump. Schumer can try this stunt out, but its only that, a stunt.. Trump had every right to remove Vindman, Sondland and others from their positions within the administration

Much of what a president discusses with his staff never even gets implemented, they toss around ideas and the legal team and most of the staff cull many ideas before anything comes of it. You have people who whistleblow on this, sometimes ideas could work, you have to keep options open and they hear these ideas and squeal like a pig. It is better to bring fresh ideas into the mix and discuss if any part of it can be implemented or discuss the negative that can come from a whole line of reasoning.

I would say most of the ideas that Trump brings to the table never see the light of day, but they might work in corporations. Then there are some in the whitehouse who hear about these things and leak them to the press.

I always discussed different ways of doing things with my employees, we tried some but many times the new way was not better, but we did try many of them to try to improve quality and efficiency. The more efficient, the less you have to charge to do the same thing next time, as long as it does not jeopardize quality.

The Dems and Media love those who leak anything controvercial, they love the profit from it. Profit does not only mean monetary gain, the Dems want to win...winning is profiting too.

If someone wants to blow the whistle on corruption fine but I do not agree with the anonymity element to the whistleblower law. Additionally, if a whistleblower gave a false report they should be held accountable, a bogus claim under the current protective status is a recipe for corruption, meaning a false whistleblower is given too much respect.
The impeachment whistleblower needs to be investigated because his charges were false.
The public deserves to know and certainly the accused deserves to see his accuser.

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Trueman

I do think that something should be done to limit retaliation against whistle-blowers. This could set a dangerous precident if not.

Obama targeted whistleblowers, jailed them and then turned around and spied on and tried to prosecute the journalist that reported the whistleblower‘s story. The left have zero credibility and their hypocrisy is off the charts. Nobody takes these fools (Democrats and their supporters) seriously anymore.

a reply to: lostbook

The issue with Vindman was his admission to not following the orders of the Commander in Chief, essentially running his own version of foreign policy in direct contradiction to Trump.

Now, Trump may have retaliated...but this fact alone give him miles of plausible deniability.

With Sondland...his essentially lying (at first attributing stuff to Trump, later retracting it saying it was what he believed to be true without any actual evidence to support him) is, again, worthy of being fired. Again...miles of plausible deniability.

If people would choose to avoid #resist tactics while in Trumps employ, they'd likely find themselves not being fired. Just my opinion. But i would have fired them both as well. And I have (arguably) far more integrity that Donald Trump.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: lostbook

The issue with Vindman was his admission to not following the orders of the Commander in Chief, essentially running his own version of foreign policy in direct contradiction to Trump.

Now, Trump may have retaliated...but this fact alone give him miles of plausible deniability.

With Sondland...his essentially lying (at first attributing stuff to Trump, later retracting it saying it was what he believed to be true without any actual evidence to support him) is, again, worthy of being fired. Again...miles of plausible deniability.

If people would choose to avoid #resist tactics while in Trumps employ, they'd likely find themselves not being fired. Just my opinion. But i would have fired them both as well. And I have (arguably) far more integrity that Donald Trump.

He probably does have every right to fire them but the optics look bad in relation to the timing.

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Trueman

I do think that something should be done to limit retaliation against whistle-blowers. This could set a dangerous precident if not.

Politicizing whistleblowers is a dangerous precendent.

However, this is a reminder that this isn't a whistleblower, these are state actors, there is MOTIVE.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Chuck is full of it. Nobody fired Vindman.

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman expects to serve out the remainder of his time on the National Security Council, according to his attorney.

"He is still there," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham also confirmed to the Washington Examiner.

Just moved to different area. All this cry democrats doing now just confirms that they got hit where it hurts.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

a reply to: lostbook

About 40% of the nation will believe whatever Trump says. Another 25% will believe whatever the DNC says. The rest will believe whatever the first headline they read says.

We live in a time where "optics" are controlled by anything but truth. The one thing I can say about Trump here is that he gets that. And he has begun to ignore the notion of optics in general, as we have seen.

Schumer, Pelosi, and several other Democrat "Leaders" need a forced psychiatric examination a.s.a.p. 😃 😎 😃

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

With Sondland...his essentially lying (at first attributing stuff to Trump, later retracting it saying it was what he believed to be true without any actual evidence to support him) is, again, worthy of being fired. Again...miles of plausible deniability.

And, Sondland's tell all book comes out in 3, 2, 1...

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Trueman

I do think that something should be done to limit retaliation against whistle-blowers. This could set a dangerous precident if not.

Vindman wasn’t fired, he is in the military. He was reassigned. Personally think a nice stint in China or Alaska would have been nice.

Why should the LTC have any whistleblower protections when his actions did not follow the protocol? Telling the “official whistleblower” (which may have not followed protocol either) privileged information (since they were not on the call apparently) ended all protection. End of story. He should be very happy he was only relocated from the White House to the Pentagon and not to serve his balance of enlistment (and then some) in Leavenworth.

Didn't the acquittal negate the assertions of the whistleblowers? If I say my CEO did something illegal, as a whistleblower, but it is determined in court that the CEO did nothing illegal and is exonerated, do I retain whistleblower status...or am I deemed a liar?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Schumer, Pelosi, and several other Democrat "Leaders" need a forced psychiatric examination a.s.a.p. 😃 😎 😃

The only one democrat leader that sounds and look normal is Tulsi. Regardless her views. I wish they could give her a chance, but I don't think she'll like to be part of their corruption ring.

Great idea, Chuck!

Because there's this new whistleblower, called RUDY GIULIANI.

You need to contact him right away. He's gonna need all the help and protection he can get!

soulwaxer

there's a difference between exposing corruption, and damaging out nation's security by releasing secret material.
who gets to decide which is which?