- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The media keeps saying whistleblower. This person does not qualify
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:48 am
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:48 am
As I understand it, you cannot be a Whistleblower in this instance.If I am right, this individual does not have the protections a whistleblower would have in that case and would be subject to any applicable statutes and laws for what they have done here.
If they worked in the White House,they would be a plain old leaker, and subject to arrest.
If they worked in the White House,they would be a plain old leaker, and subject to arrest.
11
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:50 am to antibarner
Stop watching the media.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:54 am to antibarner
quote:
subject to arrest
nothing is stopping him. he should order his royal guard to seize the leaker.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:54 am to Seldom Seen
As I was saying, this person is subject to arrest and anyone that leaked information to them is also subject to arrest.
They could probably hang an obstruction charge around Schiff's neck if he got this info and sat on it.
They could probably hang an obstruction charge around Schiff's neck if he got this info and sat on it.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:54 am to antibarner
Everyone, including congressmen, are saying whstleblower. I assume until it is definitely determined he was not, so as to protect the idea of whistleblowers being protected.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:55 am to antibarner
The interesting thing is people make the argument that he can't be a whistleblower because he doesn't have first hand knowledge of what happened. I'm not sure if that's the case or not, but I don't see how this person would be guilty of leaking though. You can't leak if you don't have first hand knowledge. If this person got his information from others telling him, then I don't see how that person does anything wrong. The people telling him are leaking, but the whistleblower itself is not. In the end, it's a moot point as it would be incredibly ruinous for the White House to go after the whistleblower from a legal standpoint. The optics of that are horrible.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:56 am to antibarner
quote:
noun: whistleblower
a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity.
quote:I assume you are complaining that this instance does not fall within the WPA. Maybe so and maybe not, but the WPA is not the only definition of the term.
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and 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.
This post was edited on 9/27/19 at 9:01 am
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:56 am to antibarner
When you break the law and leak against Trump then you are a whistle blower...when you leak on a demon-crat you have violated the law and will be prosecuted.
No double standard here...
No double standard here...
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:57 am to antibarner
Don’t know if this person qualifies or not.
The Dems and MSM will say they do to fit the definition to try and accomplish their agenda regardless.
The Dems and MSM will say they do to fit the definition to try and accomplish their agenda regardless.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:57 am to BuckyCheese
You can say it all day. But if DOJ decided they were not, they could be arrested and charged, and let a judge make that determination.This person passed on info that was leaked to him.
Which is probably what should happen. If Schiff had this info in advance and sat on it, he SHOULD be charged with Obstruction of Justice.
Which is probably what should happen. If Schiff had this info in advance and sat on it, he SHOULD be charged with Obstruction of Justice.
This post was edited on 9/27/19 at 8:59 am
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:58 am to antibarner
Sound logic you’re using there lol
Posted on 9/27/19 at 8:58 am to antibarner
This person is not a whistleblower.
He/she is a spy.
Quite simple really.
Spy =/= whistleblower
He/she is a spy.
Quite simple really.
Spy =/= whistleblower
Posted on 9/27/19 at 9:01 am to pwejr88
The person is a Democrat who had a security clearance and once worked in the White House but then went back to working for the CIA elsewhere.
Democrats are nothing less than enemies of the American people, and the Constitution.
Democrats are nothing less than enemies of the American people, and the Constitution.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 9:01 am to pwejr88
quote:
This person is not a whistleblower.
He/she is a spy.
Quite simple really.
Spy =/= whistleblower
How is this person a spy? Other people told him this. If you want to be unhappy with someone, be mad at them. There is nothing illegal about passing on information that you were told as long as you did nothing illegal to acquire it yourself.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 9:02 am to LSU2ALA
quote:Hearsay does not a WB make.
How is this person a spy? Other people told him this. If you want to be unhappy with someone, be mad at them. There is nothing illegal about passing on information that you were told as long as you did nothing illegal to acquire it yourself.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 9:03 am to antibarner
The report was an absolute sham and a tragic waste of time and resources. It completely mischaracterized the call, got key facts wrong, and was based entirely on rumors, second-hand info, and media reports that have since been proven false.
This report would not be admissible in any courtroom in America, yet its being used as a tool to launch congressional investigations and fuel an impeachment inquiry.
This person should be disciplined in some way for bastardizing the whistleblower process and filing a false report.
This report would not be admissible in any courtroom in America, yet its being used as a tool to launch congressional investigations and fuel an impeachment inquiry.
This person should be disciplined in some way for bastardizing the whistleblower process and filing a false report.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 9:03 am to pwejr88
Do what the Democrats would do, arrest and charge the SOB, and drag that bastard through the courts for months, and let a judge figure it out. Play the game by THEIR rules. Let them howl who cares?
Bust anyone that leaked and do the same to them, it's time to play hardball.
Bust anyone that leaked and do the same to them, it's time to play hardball.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 9:04 am to Jbird
quote:
Hearsay does not a WB make.
It also does not a spy make. I guess I don't understand the anger at the whistleblower though as they did nothing illegal. I understand being unhappy at the result, but you should be mad at the ones who told him the info.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 9:05 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
How is this person a spy?
spy
/spi/
noun
a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.
Posted on 9/27/19 at 9:06 am to AggieHank86
Are you doing the whole ASURob thing where you use conservative images in your avi and sig as a sort of digital "beard" to mask your dripping leftism?
Its not working.
Its not working.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News