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

And don't forget to add impugning someone's good name and reputation with a false whistleblower account and hiding being a bulls@#t anonymity law.

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

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.

Depends on what you mean. Vindman wasn't a whistle-blower, he was a petty, egotistical leaker (the source for the so-called whistle-blower) who apparently his opinion on foreign policy is more important than the Presidents (his boss).

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I do not agree with the anonymity element to the whistleblower law.

That only applies to the IG, and is only intended to protect them during the investigatory stage.

They do not have any Right or expectation of permanent anonymity, and anyone other than the IG could out them without repercussions.

I am not disagreeing with you but we and President Trump have not officially been given the name of the whistleblower.
Why and how can this be?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I do not agree with the anonymity element to the whistleblower law.

That only applies to the IG, and is only intended to protect them during the investigatory stage.

They do not have any Right or expectation of permanent anonymity, and anyone other than the IG could out them without repercussions.

So the guy who runs off with any gossip he can in the hopes of damaging your office and job gets eternal protection to continue doing so because he runs off and gossips about stuff and calls it whistleblowing?

It's not like Vindman was punted to the curb. He is still employed, still a member of the military. He just has a new assignment elsewhere ... where it will incidentally be much harder for him to obtain sensitive gossip to run around damaging the office of the presidency if he decides he doesn't like who's in it.

He should be punted to the curb, then picked up and put in the paddy wagon and sent to jail for bearing false witness.

originally posted by: ketsuko
So the guy who runs off with any gossip he can in the hopes of damaging your office and job gets eternal protection to continue doing so because he runs off and gossips about stuff and calls it whistleblowing?

It's not like Vindman was punted to the curb. He is still employed, still a member of the military. He just has a new assignment elsewhere ... where it will incidentally be much harder for him to obtain sensitive gossip to run around damaging the office of the presidency if he decides he doesn't like who's in it.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
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.

Even most of the republicans would agree that the charges are not false. Just not worthy of impeachment. You must be still be concentrating on the phone call rather than the witness testimony. Trump sure as hell did what he was accused of.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I am not disagreeing with you but we and President Trump have not officially been given the name of the whistleblower.
Why and how can this be?

Trump has tweeted the name Ciaramella before, but it is up to the Senate now to out them formally by subpoenaing them to testify - him and the ICIG, to out both of them at the same time, and fire them too.

a reply to: lostbook

Only when you don't look at the entirety of the picture.

They, in essence, committed perjury, or something very like it. Claiming knowledge that you, in reality, do not have isn't a good optic, either.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

So at what point does the president get to expect confidentiality in what he does?

Yes, there is a place for whistleblowers, but if the things you are hearing are not impeachable, just not policy you agree with, then isn't there an argument for you not continuing in your post if your reaction is to blab about it all full of butthurt in the hopes of getting your way?

a reply to: ketsuko

what if (and that is a big IF) they call the whistleblower and says that his source was Vindman, what happens to Vindman at that point, because you know what the whistleblower wrote were lies, doesnt it mean that Vindman lied in an attempt to remove a sitting president?

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
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.

Even most of the republicans would agree that the charges are not false. Just not worthy of impeachment. You must be still be concentrating on the phone call rather than the witness testimony. Trump sure as hell did what he was accused of.

Huh?
And what exactly did he do?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

Well, some of us come here to ATS first for a sanity check.

It's one of the critical data points I use when making decisions about things like this as I can usually trust that the overall membership will eventually get it right.

The wisdom of ATS crowds or the gestalt of ATS if you prefer...

a reply to: ketsuko

It's not like Vindman was punted to the curb. He is still employed, still a member of the military. He just has a new assignment elsewhere ... where it will incidentally be much harder for him to obtain sensitive gossip to run around damaging the office of the presidency if he decides he doesn't like who's in it.

You're right, Vindman is still in the military, but his career is over in my opinion. He will be passed up for advancements for other more reliable officers that show honor and integrity regardless of politics. The one thing the military doesn't like is negative attention and he brought a whole lot of it.

a reply to: seeker1963

That's crazy. Looks like he is telling some imaginary person to get out of his chair.

www.foxnews.com...
U.S. whistleblower laws exist to protect the identity and careers of people who bring forward accusations of wrongdoing by government officials. Lawmakers in both parties have historically backed those protections.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What does this mean?
What is the timeframe to make his identity known?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I do not agree with the anonymity element to the whistleblower law.

That only applies to the IG, and is only intended to protect them during the investigatory stage.

They do not have any Right or expectation of permanent anonymity, and anyone other than the IG could out them without repercussions.

edit on 10-2-2020 by fringeofthefringe because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2020 by fringeofthefringe because: (no reason given)

You have been very vague, please list the charges if you can.
I have only seen , read and heard of some saying it wasn't right to do what he did outside of Romney.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
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.

Even most of the republicans would agree that the charges are not false. Just not worthy of impeachment. You must be still be concentrating on the phone call rather than the witness testimony. Trump sure as hell did what he was accused of.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Nope, they're saying if the Democrats accusations are true they still wouldn't rise to the level of impeachment.

Then, they have that inconvenient mountain to climb of proving those accusations and not just yelling stuff on TV and expecting people to believe them after crying wolf for 3 years straight.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
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.

Even most of the republicans would agree that the charges are not false. Just not worthy of impeachment. You must be still be concentrating on the phone call rather than the witness testimony. Trump sure as hell did what he was accused of.

What most republicans will tell you is that they shouldn't have been charges to begin with, as Trump was acting wholly within his authority.

"Quid pro quo" is what we call "diplomacy". Its what you do. What you DON'T do is throw money at people without expecting that investment to pay off. Doing that has not done our nation any good. Aid needs to have strings attached, even if those strings are someone loose and tenuous.

Another way to put it: do you support providing aid to Saudi Arabia without expecting them to not do stuff like kill American journalists? Or would such a demand be a "quid pro quo" that could get you impeached?

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: ketsuko

what if (and that is a big IF) they call the whistleblower and says that his source was Vindman, what happens to Vindman at that point, because you know what the whistleblower wrote were lies, doesnt it mean that Vindman lied in an attempt to remove a sitting president?

Rumor being what it is ... I think you'd have to prove that he passed it along with malicious intent, and I think that would be especially difficult.

I think this is the best way to handle it. He can't keep his mouth shut? Put him where that lack of discretion isn't such an issue.