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.
Yesterday Senator Rand Paul broke the law by outting the Whistleblower during a press conference when he left the hearing. He and the other Republicans who took part in that press conference should be arrested and charged. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 states that federal employees will be protected when theu report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.
Yesterday Senator Rand Paul broke the law by outting the Whistleblower during a press conference when he left the hearing. He and the other Republicans who took part in that press conference should be arrested and charged. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 states that federal employees will be protected when theu report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.
are you planning to arrest all the other hundreds of thousands of people and media sources who spoke eric ciaramella's name? including me?
Nothing in the Whistleblower Protection Act provides for anonymity. There is absolutely no violation of the WPA based on saying/revealing the name of a whistleblower. The protection is from reprisals, not identity.
Read the freaking law.
Rand Paul did nothing illegal. In fact, the only person who did anything wrong yesterday, out of a decently established pattern of cowardice, was Chief Justice Roberts, who refused to read Paul's question because he also has no idea how that law works and instead deferred to Schiff's fever dream interpretation of the law.
And your apparently too stupid to look up the specifics of the protections afforded to whistleblowers in the law .......complete anonymity is not among them.
Yesterday Senator Rand Paul broke the law by outting the Whistleblower during a press conference when he left the hearing. He and the other Republicans who took part in that press conference should be arrested and charged. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 states that federal employees will be protected when theu report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.
Did he actually name the name? I thought he only asked for it to be published.
Paul was trained as an ophthalmologist but there is some question as to whether he was even properly certified to practice. I know I wouldn't let him get within 10 feet of my peepers.
Yesterday Senator Rand Paul broke the law by outting the Whistleblower during a press conference when he left the hearing. He and the other Republicans who took part in that press conference should be arrested and charged. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 states that federal employees will be protected when theu report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.
As has been stated countless times, this particular whistleblower does not qualify for the "Voldemort" protections that the Left seems so eager to grant him. He had no first-hand knowledge of anything he "blew the whistle" on. All he had was third hand gossip. One of his biggest sources was apparently the New York Times. The guy didn't know squat by all accounts and as such doesn't legally qualify as a whistleblower under whistleblower protections. The Salem witch trials were run on a very similar level of "evidence".
Since everyone on this planet already knows that Eric Ciarmella is the whistleblower, why continue to insist on with the "he who must not be named" treatment?? It is absolutely relevant to know who the man is and what his motivations are. From what we know so far, the man is Peter Strzok 2.0. In other words, he's a guy who would quite happily fabricate evidence and lie all day long if it meant getting rid of Donald Trump. It's looking really bad for you Democrats. You started the most expensive investigation in US history on the basis of a dosier that could have been clipped from the Weekly World News in terms of credibility. Now you've rammed through an impeachment process on word of a man whose hatred of Donald Trump is absolutely off the charts. Might as well take the word of the most extreme Iranian mullahs on what they think of the USA while your at it.
I'm all for additional witnesses being called and here's my list by order of importance:
1. Eric Ciarmella
2. Hunter Biden
3. Joe Biden
4. Adam Schiff
5. John Bolton
6. The individual who dictated the transcript of the call.
As a guy who couldn't care less if Donald Trump got kicked out of office and spent the rest of his life in prison -- as long as he actually deserves it -- I'm really embarrassed by how all of this has played out.
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.
