Show of Hands

And this guy is no longer a “whistleblower”. Schiff thinks he’s protected. He won’t be.

Reply Like

For actual whistleblowers, maybe, but not for political operatives. Much of the here say allegations are false or unproven.

Reply Like

For real whistleblowers, not deep state flunkeys on assignment.

Reply Like 1 person likes this

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.

Reply Like 2 people like this

Good law. But this is not a whistleblower. He is a serial leaker. Big difference.

Reply Like 4 people like this

Illegal for the general inspector not for anyone else

Reply Like 1 person likes this

The whistleblower is actually just spreading rumors. Show his name.

Reply Like 3 people like this

Rumors that have been confirmed by several credible witnesses too!
Impeach the whistleblower!!!

Like 2 people like this

Eric Ciaramella worked for Biden and Brennen back with CIA now.

Like 3 people like this

I worked for this guy, Tom, once. There was also a Dave, but now it’s Kim.

Like

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.

Like 3 people like this

What lies did I spread? Please quote directly from my two comments.

Like

Fart ...

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.

QED

Like 2 people like this

Great law

Reply Like 3 people like this

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.

Like 3 people like this

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.”

www.whistleblowers.org/the-intelligence-community-whistleblower-what-you-need-to-know/

....

Like 2 people like this

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?

Like

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.

Like 2 people like this

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!

Like

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!

Like

Where is your proof???

You lie

Like 2 people like this

SP ... thanks for proving that you’ve got nothing but lies.

Like

😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹

Like 2 people like this

I knew you didn’t have proof

Like 2 people like this

SP ... I need no proof. You’re the one making the hysterical unsubstantiatable claims, it is therefore you who must produce the proof.

Like

Wow! You really are insane!

Like 4 people like this

SP ... I get it, the truth hurts you

Like

You live in an alternative reality. Up is down, conspiracy theories are facts, Trump is god.

Like 2 people like this

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.

Reply Like 3 people like this

I didn’t look but here’s a link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

Like 1 person likes this

Didn’t see anything about protecting Identity by law. Non disclosure agreement between the employee and employer is ok.

Like 4 people like this

FWIW-it’s a crime to reveal the id of a whistleblower regardless of who does it.

Like 3 people like this

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.

Like 2 people like this

Squid it is not

Like 1 person likes this

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.

Like

The statute is stated in the question.

Like 1 person likes this

Squid ... lie. The fact is that you distorted the statute. It does NOT say what you claim it says.

Like

“Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
-Richard Nixon not talking about whistleblowers
-Trump probably

Reply Like 2 people like this

Fart ... all you need is proof from the law ... please quote it.

Like

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.

Reply Like 4 people like this

☝️

Like 2 people like this

Yes thoughtful and well said indeed 👍

Like 1 person likes this