The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 makes it a Federal Crime to reveal the identity of a whistleblower.
And this guy is no longer a “whistleblower”. Schiff thinks he’s protected. He won’t be.
For actual whistleblowers, maybe, but not for political operatives. Much of the here say allegations are false or unproven.
For real whistleblowers, not deep state flunkeys on assignment.
That law has NOTHING to do with the identification of the whistleblower it ONLY has to do with the employer can not retaliate and fire him.
Good law. But this is not a whistleblower. He is a serial leaker. Big difference.
Illegal for the general inspector not for anyone else
The whistleblower is actually just spreading rumors. Show his name.
Rumors that have been confirmed by several credible witnesses too!
Impeach the whistleblower!!!
Eric Ciaramella worked for Biden and Brennen back with CIA now.
I worked for this guy, Tom, once. There was also a Dave, but now it’s Kim.
Fart ... the partisan hack is NOT a whistleblower, he has no whistle, no facts, nothing! None of his rumors have been corroborated.
Stop spreading lies.
What lies did I spread? Please quote directly from my two comments.
1. “Rumors have been confirmed ...”. WRONG! Show the confirmations!
2. “Impeach the whistleblower”. This is pure nonsense. The leftist political hack isn’t a whistleblower and is not impeachable.
SP ... the law is fine, but Squid’s distortion of it is not. There is no law that requires any, exception the inspector general to keep the name secret, and this non-whistleblowing leftist political hack doesn’t qualify because he colluded with lying Adam Schiff to manufacture a set of lies that have been debunked.
In response to these threats, our executive director John Kostyack stated:
“The threats of reprisals by the President and others against the intelligence community whistleblower are contrary to our Nation’s core ideal of freedom of speech. We have a centuries-old bipartisan consensus that those with evidence of wrongdoing should be encouraged to step forward, not intimidated from doing so. We urge both parties in Congress to affirm that this whistleblower deserves the highest level of protection from retaliation, including the ability to maintain anonymity.”
SP ... where are you on MrO’s persecution and prosecution of legitimate whistleblowers, unlike the current phony political hack disguised by Mr Schiff as a whistleblower?
You don’t know anything about any of the current whistleblowers. Don’t lie.
It really doesn’t matter who they are because it was all corroborated.
SP ... curious that you would so forcefully assert something that you have NO WAY of validating! Why is that?
Even you know all you need to know about this non-whistleblower. He’s a political hack that is in fact a material witness to the corruption of Mr Biden. We know, because the hack has admitted, that he had no first hand knowledge of any of the claims he made. We know that he went to Adam Schiff BEFORE making a report and we know that Adam Schiff lied in Congress when he said that neither he nor his staff had any contact with the non-whistleblower.
More importantly, we know that quid pro quo is not illegal and that no quid pro quo occurred. We know that because the supposed object of the nonexistent quid pro quo said there was NO pressure. We also know that if Mr Biden was innocent that there would be NO advantage to MrT if investigating MrB’s corruption.
We know plenty — even you!
SP ... as for the latest hollow assertion that you’re parroting, we know NOTHING of the allegations of the political hack have been corroborated.
Prove even one of his lies has been corroborated, I challenge you!
Where is your proof???
SP ... thanks for proving that you’ve got nothing but lies.
I knew you didn’t have proof
SP ... I need no proof. You’re the one making the hysterical unsubstantiatable claims, it is therefore you who must produce the proof.
Wow! You really are insane!
SP ... I get it, the truth hurts you
You live in an alternative reality. Up is down, conspiracy theories are facts, Trump is god.
I couldn’t find in the text where the identity is protected by law. His job is protected.
If his identity was revealed shouldn’t someone be charge with a crime already. I thought the NYT exposed the whistleblower.
I didn’t look but here’s a link.
Didn’t see anything about protecting Identity by law. Non disclosure agreement between the employee and employer is ok.
FWIW-it’s a crime to reveal the id of a whistleblower regardless of who does it.
If they exposed this man shouldn’t people be arrested? I just couldn’t find that it was illegal to id a whistleblower. I just thought their job was protected.
Squid it is not
Squid ... your continued repeating of a lie does not make it true. Please quote the statute where it says that the identity must not be revealed.
And then , please square the circle with MrO’s treatment of whistleblowers, you know the ones he outed and mocked.
The statute is stated in the question.
Squid ... lie. The fact is that you distorted the statute. It does NOT say what you claim it says.
“Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
-Richard Nixon not talking about whistleblowers
Fart ... all you need is proof from the law ... please quote it.
As it should. I know one of his toadies will take the fall, but that could yet be another federal crime added to the list of impeachable offenses. I'm not sure using the power of elected office to incite or encourage others to break the law it isn’t impeachable in and of itself, not that the list needs supplementation.
Yes thoughtful and well said indeed 👍
This user is currently being ignored
If/when it becomes a criminal case, maybe the 6th amendment will matter.
Look at you getting whataboutism all over you. Make sure they eat pineapples before you get it in your mouth.
My dick just fell off from that.
Jesus fucking christ Trumptards are obsessed with that lying bitch. #metoo my cellulite infested ass. She needs to take her five minutes and go play in traffic with the Trump kids
Lady ... I suggest that Jesus is never going to agree with you on that!
Yes it’s great otherwise why have a whistleblower protection act.
Except Eric is not a whistleblower, he’s a CIA leaker
READ THE TRANSCRIPT!
Release the transcript.
That’s a memo, not the transcript. Regardless....I did read it....it’s extortion. Not that it matters... Because sonfar six witnesses have testified about the quid pro quo phone call. State Department and NSC staff have also produced contemporaneous emails and texts that corroborate their testimony.
The claim that Trump faces a nameless, faceless accuser is false.
What is true is that Trump extorted an ally. It’s also true that Trump is trying to get help from foreign countries for his election. Both things are illegal.
You won’t believe me of course. So enjoy the hearings.
Nope, it’s the transcript. And if one read it objectively they would see it was a very cordial and informal conversation where the President of Ukraine repeatedly praised President Trump, even saying he would drain the swamp in Ukraine. And as a throw away line Trump casually mentioned the Biden thing as it is indeed illegal for a sitting Vice President to use his position to enrich himself or his family. Even the President of Ukraine has come out and said it was a light hearted conversation and never took Trump’s off the cuff remark seriously. Russia bombed, Ukraine bombed, impeachment bombed... just keep throwing nothing burgers as this guy cuz it’s so damn entertaining to watch you idiots cry like little children 😂
Awkward: In new 4-page sworn statement, Amb. Sondland says he now remembers telling a top Zelenskiy aide that Ukraine wouldn’t get its military assistance until it committed to investigations, according to a person with knowledge of his testimony.
Oh he “now remembers” lol how convenient. Man you’re desperate. 😂
Looks like Cheeto Jesus is going to have to find a new fall guy.
You misspelled Creepy Joe.
You misread Toddler in Chief
But you can “out” a leaker
That’s good. But isn’t that the job of a free press, and the sources are protected. The press does not have to reveal sources. Right? Watergate didn’t use a whistle blower. It used good reporting. And what’s the deal with the whistle blower that exposed the Obama/ Holder scheme to send guns to the Cartel in Mexico? He was targeted by the Obama administration.
That’s a good question - Obama has prosecuted FAR more whistleblowers....why no outrage then???? The hypocrisy is strong with the Democrats!!
Why does Trump keep insisting on breaking the law?
Because they falsified a legal document when they lied on the whistle blower complaint.
“The so-called whistleblower at the center of Democrats impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump may have committed a felony in their attempt to damage the president.”
the whistleblower -- who has not been identified -- failed to disclose in their official complaint that they had first brought the information to the office of House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff.
This missing information was first learned when Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson testified behind closed doors on Friday that he “had no knowledge” the whistleblower had spoken to Schiff’s office.
As noted by Fox, 18 U.S. Code §?1001 specifies that an individual who “falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” could be subject to felony charges of making a false statement.”
So, you still want this law broken?
Who broke the law? Now you have a supposed whistle blower who committed a felony. So now what, should the whistle blower go to prison Incognito?
The press are not bound by that law......print the name!!!