FBI Looking To Speak With Whistleblower

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

www.npr.org... NPR take on the whistle blower situation

Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower? Experts Say It Would Not Violate Any Laws

the article expands on it but i tend to quote too much in my postings so trying to get better at it and less snippits

Thanks for the additional information, from the article:
"Anybody who is thinking about outing the whistleblower has to take into account the possibility that if something happens to the whistleblower, there would be some civil liability for causing that to happen," Litt said. "And while disclosing the identity of the whistleblower isn't necessarily unlawful, creating a hostile work environment might be viewed as retaliation."
There are so many questions regarding the whistleblower statute. The Republicans where trying to get the statute put into the record so they can call Schiff out on the validity of the anonymity of the so called whistleblower.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

www.npr.org... NPR take on the whistle blower situation

Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower? Experts Say It Would Not Violate Any Laws

the article expands on it but i tend to quote too much in my postings so trying to get better at it and less snippits

The House interviewed the leaker, ummm, whistleblower. He was the one wearing his Lt. Colonel uniform yesterday. The republicans ate him alive, his name is mud, say goodby to that uniform, he has orange jumpsuits in his future.

a reply to: carewemust
I posted before I read your's. 100% spot on with Vindmen.

Yes, they had Vindman for brunch. Vindman Stew
I usually don't enjoy watching a feast without partaking but today was an exception.

originally posted by: CharlesT
The House interviewed the leaker, ummm, whistleblower. He was the one wearing his Lt. Colonel uniform yesterday. The republicans ate him alive.

a reply to: CharlesT

Vindman is in the NSC, not the CIA.
The NSC is a part of the Administration, not the intelligence community.

Yes, I believe the inference from Vindmans' testimony was he passed the information to the eventual "whistleblower"

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlesT

Vindman is in the NSC, not the CIA.
The NSC is a part of the Administration, not the intelligence community.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

That was the direction of Nunes' line of questioning, no doubt. Which is why it was shut down, as he knew it would be. Against the rules.

originally posted by: CharlesT
The House interviewed the leaker, ummm, whistleblower. He was the one wearing his Lt. Colonel uniform yesterday. The republicans ate him alive, his name is mud, say goodby to that uniform, he has orange jumpsuits in his future.

Ucmj violaters get orange jumpsuits?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes. For as long as they need them. While awaiting sentencing. After that, not so much.

ganjoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlesT

Vindman is in the NSC, not the CIA.
The NSC is a part of the Administration, not the intelligence community.

examples.yourdictionary.com...
A figure of speech is a word or phrase that possesses a separate meaning from its literal definition. It can be a metaphor or simile, designed to make a comparison. It can be the repetition of alliteration or the exaggeration of hyperbole to provide a dramatic effect.

In truth, there are a wealth of these literary tools in the English language. But, let's start out by exploring some of the most common figure of speech examples.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

That was the direction of Nunes' line of questioning, no doubt. Which is why it was shut down, as he knew it would be. Against the rules.

How was it against the rules? If neither Schiff nor Vindman know the identity of the whistleblower then how does protecting someone they don't know to be the whistleblower within the rules? I'm shocked Schiff is just taking Vindmans word for it that whomever he told was on "need to know" status.....that should have been hammered.

I was under the impression that there was an agreement with Vindaimt's attorney and Schiff to not discuss who he spoke to in the intelligence community without having to plea the 5th...so maybe not a rule but an agreement.
Either way not cool, it proves Vindamit knows he told the whistleblower.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

That was the direction of Nunes' line of questioning, no doubt. Which is why it was shut down, as he knew it would be. Against the rules.

How was it against the rules? If neither Schiff nor Vindman know the identity of the whistleblower then how does protecting someone they don't know to be the whistleblower within the rules? I'm shocked Schiff is just taking Vindmans word for it that whomever he told was on "need to know" status.....that should have been hammered.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I was under the impression that there was an agreement with Vindaimt's attorney and Schiff to not discuss who he spoke to in the intelligence community without having to plea the 5th...so maybe not a rule but an agreement.
Either way not cool, it proves Vindamit knows he told the whistleblower.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

That was the direction of Nunes' line of questioning, no doubt. Which is why it was shut down, as he knew it would be. Against the rules.

How was it against the rules? If neither Schiff nor Vindman know the identity of the whistleblower then how does protecting someone they don't know to be the whistleblower within the rules? I'm shocked Schiff is just taking Vindmans word for it that whomever he told was on "need to know" status.....that should have been hammered.

That would also mean he lied under oath because he stated he didn't know. He can't have it both ways. He either knows and won't say or doesn't know and as such the identity of whom he told should be known. We are talking something that was classified at the time he spoke to whomever can't be named but are supposed to take his word that this person is qualified to have heard this and is not the whistleblower...

I hope if that is the case it will be proven.
It sure seemed that way to me, Vindamin did not come across well at all.
The whole thing was convoluted and contrived but apparently this is what we get from our political leadership on the Democrat side.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I was under the impression that there was an agreement with Vindaimt's attorney and Schiff to not discuss who he spoke to in the intelligence community without having to plea the 5th...so maybe not a rule but an agreement.
Either way not cool, it proves Vindamit knows he told the whistleblower.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

That was the direction of Nunes' line of questioning, no doubt. Which is why it was shut down, as he knew it would be. Against the rules.

How was it against the rules? If neither Schiff nor Vindman know the identity of the whistleblower then how does protecting someone they don't know to be the whistleblower within the rules? I'm shocked Schiff is just taking Vindmans word for it that whomever he told was on "need to know" status.....that should have been hammered.

That would also mean he lied under oath because he stated he didn't know. He can't have it both ways. He either knows and won't say or doesn't know and as such the identity of whom he told should be known. We are talking something that was classified at the time he spoke to whomever can't be named but are supposed to take his word that this person is qualified to have heard this and is not the whistleblower...

a reply to: shooterbrody

Not if the recipient also has top secret clearance.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Actually he, Vindman , said he passed the information on to two people.
I think Devin Nunes was questioning him and it was obvious he was going for the identity of the whistleblower when Adam Schiff cut him off on that line of questioning.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Not if you're one of the protected few who feel entitled.

Well, yes. I think Nunes did a great job of getting to the point. There was a little theatrics but Nunes made it 100% clear that Vindamin is the guy that leaked the contents off the call to the whistleblower. I would like the whistleblower to come forward and own the statements made which by the way were not accurate.
In the end, Schiff and Vindemin did not look good in that exchange.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Actually he, Vindman , said he passed the information on to two people.
I think Devin Nunes was questioning him and it was obvious he was going for the identity of the whistleblower when Adam Schiff cut him off on that line of questioning.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Not if the recipient also has top secret clearance.

Need to know
You wouldn't understand the concept
Typical