he will become part of the impeachment proceedings if your ilk want to go down the ukraine road for impeachment.
we gonna cross-examine the spyblower to ascertain his motives and connections.
let's go. talk to AOC and find out when she is ready.
Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry
- Thread starter Big AAPL
- Start date
he will become part of the impeachment proceedings if your ilk want to go down the ukraine road for impeachment.
we gonna cross-examine the spyblower to ascertain his motives and connections.
let's go. talk to AOC and find out when she is ready.
If the issue is that the protection for whistleblowers isn't sufficient, I think we should work that. But every person has a right to know who their accuser is. Otherwise how can we know that the facts surrounding the case are true if there is no cross examination of the witness?? Our judicial system is built on this. Innocent until proven guilty. If we ever go down a road where anonymous accusations are the only thing to matter, I shudder to think what will come of the justice system.
I’d be careful with the outing a whistleblower even if their complaint were “not true”, really not credible. Unless they are actually falsified complaints then there should be action taken. But complaints brought in good faith should never be admonished.
Remember, whistleblowers are vital to the integrity of government operations, which are historically subject to abuse due to the nature of political turnover in leadership. This is the need for whistleblower protections to keep government operations without corruption.
This whistleblower brought a very credible complaint of abuse of power, quid pro quo, by the president. Above all other complaints this is probably the most serious since the statute was enacted.
As a government employee his motives are directed by the whistleblower statute which “strongly encourage federal employees to disclose wrongdoing.”
It’s his duty, dumbass.
This is precisely the problem. How can we say that complaints are being brought in good faith unless there is a cross examination?
The problem here is that this person is not actually a whistleblower. They met with Schiff's staff beforehand and obviously coordinated this entire thing. There is a statutory procedure one must follow to qualify as a whistleblower, and this person did not follow it.
For those reasons, their identity should be revealed and they should probably be terminated from their position. There is a line between being a whistleblower and misusing your government job for political purposes. At this point, it seems obvious this person is on the wrong side of that line.
For those reasons, their identity should be revealed and they should probably be terminated from their position. There is a line between being a whistleblower and misusing your government job for political purposes. At this point, it seems obvious this person is on the wrong side of that line.
I see, so if the statute requires or specifies certain conditions then that means this person must be following them? Uh, huh. work on that a bit.
Doesnt apply in a criminal or impeachment proceeding anyway. The whistleblower act does not prevent disclosure where it is necessary. It calls for protection to the extent possible and then taking steps to protect a persons job if they are outed in the process.
Yet no one who was actually involved in this saw anything improper. Not the CIA people, not the Ambassador, not Trump's envoys, not the Ukraine PM.
The claim apparently is that someone who was there, the assumption being they are CIA, told this other person about the call. That seems to qualify as a firing offense right there, so it is also important to find out who the leaker was.
Another possibility is that no one leaked the call contents. Rather, this whistleblower received them from an outside party, eg Chinese intelligence. The mere possibility of that is alarming enough to warrant an intensive investigation.
What in the name of nonsense and fictitious statutory procedures is this nonsense?