Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see anything about keeping a whistleblower's identity secret. Can you point it out?
The identity of whistle blowers who are employed by the government are always shielded, that is not true for those working outside government. If you want employees to continue to report corruption then they need protection, we don't need to change the rules for Trump. Its really unimportant since his claims will be investigated in any event and people that have first hand knowledge will be interviewed.
If you listened to Yavonovicth's opening remarks and comments from Volker and the text messages from Sondland released it sure gives the WB credibility. What would exposing his identity accomplish other than to prevent others from coming forward.
And the right of people to confront their accuser goes bye-bye? And how are we to test his credibility? What if the whistle-blower posted his accusations on CD and then wanted the post to serve as cause of action in the impeachment battle? Without such exposure his "complaint" is little more than a post on CD.
This is not a trial in a court of law, this is an investigation of a complaint. You are getting ahead of yourself, they first need to verify the claims which seem to be mostly supported by Trumps transcript and Giuliani's comments. This needs to travel through the process.
The identity of whistle blowers who are employed by the government are always shielded, that is not true for those working outside government. If you want employees to continue to report corruption then they need protection, we don't need to change the rules for Trump. Its really unimportant since his claims will be investigated in any event and people that have first hand knowledge will be interviewed.
If you listened to Yavonovicth's opening remarks and comments from Volker and the text messages from Sondland released it sure gives the WB credibility. What would exposing his identity accomplish other than to prevent others from coming forward.
I understand the reasons for whistleblower protection, but the question is what statute protects the identity of the "whistleblower"? Until we see that, we don't know whether he is entitled to confidentiality.
His identity isn't important because we need to judge his credibility. His identity is important because he is part of a cabal that is working to convince the public to support impeachment under false pretenses.
An IG that Trump put in says the claim is creditable. That he even let the DOJ see it beforehand and the WH heard about it, but was never given the whistleblower, says a lot about how bad Trumps actions are.
The law says that when someone hears about a possible national security breach, that it can't be reported?
And where is the leak? My understanding is that it was reported via proper channels. It was actually the Admin who released the transcripts. That was after they tried to hide it on a secure server and got caught.
But please elaborate on two things:
What law says it's illegal?, and
How was classified material leaked, specifically?
I'm asking sincerely. I "think" you are wrong here, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise, if you have something credible. (Not "Trump said" so it must be true. Cite the law, and show where it was actually leaked.)
The original “whistleblower” did not leak, or at least based on what we know right now did not leak. The person who the originally told the “whistleblower” about the phone call, on the other hand, leaked and did so at a level that is probably criminal and violates several national security based laws and regulations. At bare minimum they need to lose their Top Secret Clearance. Seriously, they gossiped about a classified call. That person should have contacted the IG if they were so troubled, that is exactly specified as one of the purposes of whistleblower laws.
If that original person had been the whistleblower that would be different. But, instead, they gossiped about the classified communication to someone who was not authorized access to THAT classified information. I think what a lot of people don’t get is that a Top Secret Clearance alone does not mean the person is allowed to have access to ALL classified information. It means they are allowed access to classified information that they have a “need to know”. For example, as a transcriptionist you can even be cleared to have access to a phone call made at 2:00 but have your clearance not cover a 3:15 call, even if it’s between the same two people.
The “whistleblower” has an obligation to report the person who should have been the whistleblower - because that person broke the law and endangered national security. “Loose lips sink ships”
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
The original “whistleblower” did not leak, or at least based on what we know right now did not leak. The person who the originally told the “whistleblower” about the phone call, on the other hand, leaked and did so at a level that is probably criminal and violates several national security based laws and regulations. At bare minimum they need to lose their Top Secret Clearance. Seriously, they gossiped about a classified call. That person should have contacted the IG if they were so troubled, that is exactly specified as one of the purposes of whistleblower laws.
If that original person had been the whistleblower that would be different. But, instead, they gossiped about the classified communication to someone who was not authorized access to THAT classified information. I think what a lot of people don’t get is that a Top Secret Clearance alone does not mean the person is allowed to have access to ALL classified information. It means they are allowed access to classified information that they have a “need to know”. For example, as a transcriptionist you can even be cleared to have access to a phone call made at 2:00 but have your clearance not cover a 3:15 call, even if it’s between the same two people.
The “whistleblower” has an obligation to report the person who should have been the whistleblower - because that person broke the law and endangered national security. “Loose lips sink ships”
Probably criminal? OK. What Trump did is probably criminal.
I understand the reasons for whistleblower protection, but the question is what statute protects the identity of the "whistleblower"? Until we see that, we don't know whether he is entitled to confidentiality.
His identity isn't important because we need to judge his credibility. His identity is important because he is part of a cabal that is working to convince the public to support impeachment under false pretenses.
We don't get to see anything, this is entirely up to the IG as it is in every complaint. What will divulging his name accomplish, the substance of his complaint is what is important.
We don't get to see anything, this is entirely up to the IG as it is in every complaint.
You don't know that. Or, if you do, you're keeping the source of your knowledge secret. What law protects the "whsitleblower's" identity? Where does the law say the IG has discretion to conceal or reveal the identity?
You don't know that. Or, if you do, you're keeping the source of your knowledge secret. What law protects the "whsitleblower's" identity? Where does the law say the IG has discretion to conceal or reveal the identity?
This is also true throughout government but obviously if an employee is making a complaint against a direct supervisor it would difficult to conceal identity.
Quote:
Section 7(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable:The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
