Whistle Blower in protection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump wants the whistleblower dealt with. We have audio.

“The whistleblower is a spy. We used to deal with differently. When we were smarter.”

I hate Trump, but he didn’t say that about the WB, he said it about the person who confided in the WB. Not much of a difference, but still different.

Yes, let's split hairs even further.

Besides which, WB received the information in the course of business, and there is no indication those who provided that information were not authorized to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the #FakeNews:

So, seems as if both 60 Minutes and Adam Schiff need to issue corrections.


Jerry Dunleavy
@JerryDunleavy
“
@60Minutes
completely misinterpreted the contents of our letter. The letter is now published online at http://CompassRosePllc.com. Nor have we, as we stated earlier today, reached any agreement w/ Congress on contact w/ the whistleblower. Discussions remain ongoing.”
—
@MarkSZaidEsq

https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1178478001891287040

Got any sources that aren't the DC Examiner or Fox News?

People may need to be reminded it's against Federal law to identify a whistle blower who has followed the rules as this person seems to have done. Trump is now tweeting he wants to meet the whistle blower so I'm sure he'll break another Federal law. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1178442765736333313

It looks like Trump has managed to tweet and retweet about 30 times today while going to and from his golf course. Not to be confused with the golf he played yesterday with Lindsey Graham and Gary Player. Does he do anything except play golf and tweet?

Mark S Zaid issued the statement. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Have you noticed that Zaid has not used a pronoun other than "their" to refer to his client. Are we sure he's a he as reported by the NYT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you noticed that Zaid has not used a pronoun other than "their" to refer to his client. Are we sure he's a he as reported by the NYT?

Zaid is doing that to keep from revealing whether the whistleblower is a man or a woman.

Duh.

[Anonymous]

I really hope the WB is a woman. Trump needs to be taken down by women.

[Anonymous]

Schiff corrected 60 minutes when they said “he” Schiff interjected “or she.”

[Anonymous]

Trump just threatened the whistleblower again.

““We’re trying to find out” who the whistleblower is, Trump told reporters just now.”
https://amp.axios.com/donald-trump-identity-whistleblower-ukraine-c3c1b98f-962f-425d-8a1e-a0a44c9f744b.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100&__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

That's not gossip when you are in a security role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump just threatened the whistleblower again.

““We’re trying to find out” who the whistleblower is, Trump told reporters just now.”
https://amp.axios.com/donald-trump-identity-whistleblower-ukraine-c3c1b98f-962f-425d-8a1e-a0a44c9f744b.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100&__twitter_impression=true

Yikes! Do something, Congress!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

That's not gossip when you are in a security role.

It is gossip and hearsay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

That's not gossip when you are in a security role.

It is gossip and hearsay.

It's only hearsay in a court of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:60 minutes says whistle blower is under federal protection now. Come on people. This is not right. The whistler blower did everything right.

Fake news. Fake crime. Fake news. Next

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

That's not gossip when you are in a security role.

It is gossip and hearsay.

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

That's not gossip when you are in a security role.

It is gossip and hearsay.

Let's just pretend it was gossip and hearsay in the WB complaints. So What? Trump's own White House has now released a summary of the conversation in which he tied military aid to Ukraine to a "favor" of working with Guiliani (his personal attorney) and William Barr (attorney general) to investigate the Bidens. Does that not concern you, PP? What if the congressional investigation shows there is really a crime there?

Like if your neighbor told you they had heard through the grapevine that your kid was stealing cars and getting high. When you asked your kid, he said, well, kind of, but that's not wrong is it? And you said... Actually, it doesn't matter if it's wrong or right because I heard about it by gossip. And gossip is just so, so bad! Forgive me, son, and carry on. The neighbor and I should be ashamed of ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Gossip (definition) = casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.


So, this wasn't "casual or unconstrained" -- as it was in the course of WB's duties to know what was happening. and everything WB has reported so far as been confirmed as true. So, definitely NOT "gossip."


PP who likes to claim "gossip," --- a question for you ----- is it "gossip" when a police officer testifies in court or writes in a report/complaint/affidavit that a victim ran out of a house and said "my husband is trying to kill me!"????

Is that "gossip" b/c the police officer didn't actually see the husband trying to kill the victim? No, it is not "gossip."