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

You are making my case.

The quotes you responded to were from the foxnews article.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I agree whistleblowers are important however I am not on board with them having anonymity, that was my only contention.
And, repeating myself, when the whistleblower claims are found to be wrong then the whistleblower needs to be held accountable because false accusations can really damage a nation or person.

I have been consistent with this throughout, you must have misread my posts.
You are echoing my sentiments, the whistleblower should publicly stand behind his or her claims.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
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.

Wrong. They exist to protect those who might blow the whistle on 'waste, fraud and abuse' from retaliation.

The only one who is legally obligated to protect the identity of the whistle-blower is the IG who receives the report - and that only applies (logically) while the investigation is ongoing. It certainly diesn't give them blanket anonymity, and certainly not blanket/permanent 'career protection' - especially when it becomes clear that they were not, in fact, a whistle-blower, but a leaker trying to frame a duly elected official - especially when that official is the President.

Lawmakers in both parties have historically backed those protections.

Really? Are you totally clueless? Obama aggressively pursued whistle-blowers and leakers in an unprecedented manner, including reporters they whistled to, during his tenure.

Get off the high horse. Leakers are a real threat to National Security. Whistleblowers should be protected, but that does not include anonymity.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

There is no legal timeframe. As I said, anyone, other than the IG, could make their identity known at any time, without consequence.

edit on 11-2-2020 by fringeofthefringe because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
And, repeating myself, when the whistleblower claims are found to be wrong then the whistleblower needs to be held accountable because false accusations can really damage a nation or person.

Well, there is 'wrong', and there is 'fabricated with malicious intent'.

Just someone being wrong - mis-heard something, whatever - deserves disciplinary action, maybe...

Malicious fabrications deserve criminal prosecution with extreme penalties.

I have been consistent with this throughout, you must have misread my posts.

Possibly con fused yours with someone elses, if so, my bad, and apologies.

thanks, I'm sure we'll have disagreements on issues, laws and policies..just not this one.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
And, repeating myself, when the whistleblower claims are found to be wrong then the whistleblower needs to be held accountable because false accusations can really damage a nation or person.

Well, there is 'wrong', and there is 'fabricated with malicious intent'.

Just someone being wrong - mis-heard something, whatever - deserves disciplinary action, maybe...

Malicious fabrications deserve criminal prosecution with extreme penalties.

I have been consistent with this throughout, you must have misread my posts.

Possibly con fused yours with someone elses, if so, my bad, and apologies.

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.

If any of the witnesses had first hand account of event taking place, I would put far more faith in their words. However, since all of the testimony I am aware of deals with second and even third hand accounts and supposition I (personally) discount most if not all of it as hearsay at best and treasonous at worst. If you have evidence of first hand accounts with some sort of documentation to back it up, please by all means provide it. I and many others would enjoy reading/viewing it.

ETA: if your still having issues understanding, let me simplify it for you. Say you work for someone. You disagree with your boss on established policies. As a result you file charges against your employer as a form of retribution. The claims go to court and the court rules in your bosses favour. Now should you still expect to keep your job after that event?

How about from the other side, now you are the boss, and someone else filed false claims about you. Are you going to allow that person keep their current job, or are you going to remove the problem employee from the work environment as quickly as possible?