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