Whistle Blower in protection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In that case, isn't it a crime for Joe Biden to offer/threaten one billion in U.S aid (tax payer dollars) to the Ukraine while he was Vice President based on whether a prosecutor is fired in that country for going after the company Joe Bidens son worked for? Biden bragged about doing just that on camera.

If you'd like to open a retroactive impeachment inquiry into Joe Bidn, I have no problem whatsoever with that plan. It seems like it should be determined if Biden was asking in accordance with or against the official position of the United States government. In the meantime, we are dealing with the current POTUS... And perhaps it would be helpful to remind Trump and supporters of the old playground adage, "two wrongs don't make a right." You cannot deflect this repeatedly by pointing at Biden, or Clinton, or anyone else. So lame and childish.

[Anonymous]

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.

If i were the WB, I'd be more concerned about the effect of Trump's words on members of his base, who might decide to take things into their own hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In that case, isn't it a crime for Joe Biden to offer/threaten one billion in U.S aid (tax payer dollars) to the Ukraine while he was Vice President based on whether a prosecutor is fired in that country for going after the company Joe Bidens son worked for? Biden bragged about doing just that on camera.

No. Of course not. But apparently it's all just too difficult for you to grasp. So just go back to your knitting and we'll wake you up when we impeach the president for abusing his office.

[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.

Not according to the IC IG. The Federalist article is demonstrably false.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-shows-russian-trolls-how-its-done-with-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-smear

From the article:

“There’s never been a requirement that a whistleblower have firsthand knowledge of what they’re reporting,” said Irvin McCullough, an investigator at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (and the son of a former IC IG). “They need to have a reasonable belief. The firsthand information is usually gathered by the inspector general, as I believe did occur here.”

[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.

If i were the WB, I'd be more concerned about the effect of Trump's words on members of his base, who might decide to take things into their own hands.

It'll be another Comet Ping Pong if the whistleblower gets doxxed (by anyone, not just Trump) without being under protection.

[Anonymous]

The initial reporting form (before August 2019) had a spot to mark if the information was heard directly, or from an internal source, or from an external source. The change was to combine the latter two, so option were to mark info as heard directly or from another source.

As PP noted above, the criteria was "reasonable belief," not direct sourcing. It's not supposed to establish evidence but indicate need for investigation.

This is getting completely misrepresented by the right-wing media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The initial reporting form (before August 2019) had a spot to mark if the information was heard directly, or from an internal source, or from an external source. The change was to combine the latter two, so option were to mark info as heard directly or from another source.

As PP noted above, the criteria was "reasonable belief," not direct sourcing. It's not supposed to establish evidence but indicate need for investigation.

This is getting completely misrepresented by the right-wing media.

Still going!

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-runs-debunked-talking-point-about-requirements-filing-whistleblower-complaint

[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.

To start with, you can come out as a real person posting on this forum, not some Anonymous. The consequence is minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the accused not have a right to face his accuser?

Yes, but the Trumpsters probably want to shoot him. Remember the Pizza gate? Can't argue with stupid.

[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.

And if I didn't want to have to answer any questions, I would say I was scared of being killed by angry mobs.

Like Pizza gate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you'd like to open a retroactive impeachment inquiry into Joe Bidn, I have no problem whatsoever with that plan. It seems like it should be determined if Biden was asking in accordance with or against the official position of the United States government. In the meantime, we are dealing with the current POTUS... And perhaps it would be helpful to remind Trump and supporters of the old playground adage, "two wrongs don't make a right." You cannot deflect this repeatedly by pointing at Biden, or Clinton, or anyone else. So lame and childish.

We should sticky this.

Whether Hunter Biden is a criminal or not, it doesn't change the fact that the PRESIDENT acted suspiciously to further his own interests while in office, which is impeachable. This deserves an official investigation. By all means investigate others to your heart's content, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you'd like to open a retroactive impeachment inquiry into Joe Bidn, I have no problem whatsoever with that plan. It seems like it should be determined if Biden was asking in accordance with or against the official position of the United States government. In the meantime, we are dealing with the current POTUS... And perhaps it would be helpful to remind Trump and supporters of the old playground adage, "two wrongs don't make a right." You cannot deflect this repeatedly by pointing at Biden, or Clinton, or anyone else. So lame and childish.

We should sticky this.

Whether Hunter Biden is a criminal or not, it doesn't change the fact that the PRESIDENT acted suspiciously to further his own interests while in office, which is impeachable. This deserves an official investigation. By all means investigate others to your heart's content, too.

We shouldn't sticky this. Hunter Biden did nothing wrong being on a board. There's nothing to investigate and we shouldn't ask/make Ukraine investigate him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This now appears to be a coordinated media strategy to protect the whistleblower from being questioned or scrutinized.

It is the government's job, including the president's, to protect the WB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of us would have the moral courage and fortitude to be the whistleblower? That person is a true patriot. Will his life ever be the same? What about his family? Can this man even be protected long-term?

Last week, as I was going about the mundane aspects of my life, the whistleblower was on my mind. The simple things we all take for granted, the little things we do with our kids each day, that run at the park to burn off stress…has the whistleblower given all this up for his country?

The PP who suggested that this sacrifice was too much for most was correct. What we see playing out is why others have not come forward before this point in time. God bless the whistleblower. I am praying for his safety and long-term health. No patriotic American should wish him anything but Godspeed.

Yes, I would be too wimpy to do what he does. Even if I don't care whether I die, I am worried about my family.

[Anonymous]

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