Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Perfect example of what I mean: the media is now threatening Trump and Rand Paul to not disclose the name of the whistleblower because they claim it is against the law and they will go to jail. Not only are they wrong, but since when is the media in favor of NOT reporting on something? But they know damn well who the whistleblower is and they know damn well it will make the whole impeachment fiasco look like complete bullshit if report on who it is and report on his Democrat ties, so they are now threatening a sitting US senator and the sitting US president in an attempt to silence them.

---

“Do your job and print his name!” Paul said as the president clapped and looked on approvingly.

On Tuesday, the Kentucky Republican went a step further, threatening to reveal the name himself.


But many of Paul’s colleagues oppose the idea of exposing the identity of the person who helped launch the impeachment drive by detailing Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president.

Senior Senate Republicans are worried about the precedent it would set, fearing government sources would be less likely to reveal wrongdoing in future presidencies.

They also have a simpler concern: not breaking the law.

“We should follow the law. And I believe the law protects whistleblowers,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).


“The whistleblower statute is there for a reason. And I think we need to respect the law where whistleblowers are concerned. Eventually that person may decide to come forward voluntarily,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), who added that senators like Paul are frustrated with the lack of transparency from the House.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said officials “ought to respect the whistleblower laws,” as did Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.). Several senators cited the work of Chuck Grassley, the most senior Senate Republican, who has made whistleblower protections a signature issue.

On Tuesday the Iowa Republican reiterated his stance. “All I can say is I expect whistleblowers to be protected according to what the law gives them,” Grassley said.

“I write whistleblower laws. I got to go by what the law says, and things of that nature so I made my position pretty clear,” he added. “And journalists will have to do what journalists do.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) also expressed his support for the whistleblower.

“Whistleblowers should be entitled to confidentially and privacy, because they play a vital function in our democracy,” Romney said.

AND THOSE FUCKING REPUBLICANS TOO! @#(p*$^&*()@!#&^$%%()*#@!$^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Rogue

“Do your job and print his name!” Paul said as the president clapped and looked on approvingly.

On Tuesday, the Kentucky Republican went a step further, threatening to reveal the name himself.


But many of Paul’s colleagues oppose the idea of exposing the identity of the person who helped launch the impeachment drive by detailing Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president.

Senior Senate Republicans are worried about the precedent it would set, fearing government sources would be less likely to reveal wrongdoing in future presidencies.

They also have a simpler concern: not breaking the law.

“We should follow the law. And I believe the law protects whistleblowers,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).


“The whistleblower statute is there for a reason. And I think we need to respect the law where whistleblowers are concerned. Eventually that person may decide to come forward voluntarily,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), who added that senators like Paul are frustrated with the lack of transparency from the House.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said officials “ought to respect the whistleblower laws,” as did Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.). Several senators cited the work of Chuck Grassley, the most senior Senate Republican, who has made whistleblower protections a signature issue.

On Tuesday the Iowa Republican reiterated his stance. “All I can say is I expect whistleblowers to be protected according to what the law gives them,” Grassley said.

“I write whistleblower laws. I got to go by what the law says, and things of that nature so I made my position pretty clear,” he added. “And journalists will have to do what journalists do.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) also expressed his support for the whistleblower.

“Whistleblowers should be entitled to confidentially and privacy, because they play a vital function in our democracy,” Romney said.

AND THOSE FUCKING REPUBLICANS TOO! @#(p*$^&*()@!#&^$%%()*#@!$^

---

This is what I mean with you defending bad actors. My entire point was about the media who used to pride themselves on reporting on things. 10 years ago they would have been all over someone naming the whistleblower so they could report on it, or even reporting on it themselves if they knew who it was, they are now literally threatening a US senator and the US president in an attempt to silence them.

Why are you so broken? Why can't you just say "Yeah the media is pretty fucked up these days." Instead you're just like a typical leftist these days and I am your Trump; if I'm against Thing A you have to be for Thing A, and if I'm for Thing B you have to be against Thing B.

Did you know the media is also currently busy NOT reporting on the Epstein coverup ABC engaged in? I suppose they are still good guys because Trump said "grab'em by the pussy" one time right?

I guess it's good your friendly Russian Media went ahead and printed it.

American news organizations resisted the pressure, but—in a 2019 re-play of “Russia, if you’re listening”—Kremlin-controlled state media promptly jumped on it.
Shortly after Sen. Paul tweeted out an article that speculated in considerable detail about the identity of the whistleblower—with a photograph, a name, and details about the purported political history of a CIA professional—Russian state media followed suit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

This is what I mean with you defending bad actors. My entire point was about the media who used to pride themselves on reporting on things. 10 years ago they would have been all over reporting on who this whistleblower was if they knew who it was, they are now literally threatening a US senator and the US president in an attempt to silence them.

Why are you so broken? Why can't you just say "Yeah the media is pretty fucked up these days." Instead you're just like a typical leftist these days and I am your Trump; if I'm against Thing A you have to be for Thing A, and if I'm for Thing B you have to be against Thing B.

Did you know the media is also currently busy NOT reporting on the Epstein coverup ABC engaged in? I suppose they are still good guys because Trump said "grab'em by the pussy" one time right?

---

But you are plainly saying there is no law and I just posted that multiple Republican congressman think there is and support not reporting.

And how is not reporting something THREATENING anyone? Are you that simple?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Rogue

I guess it's good your friendly Russian Media went ahead and printed it.

American news organizations resisted the pressure, but—in a 2019 re-play of “Russia, if you’re listening”—Kremlin-controlled state media promptly jumped on it.
Shortly after Sen. Paul tweeted out an article that speculated in considerable detail about the identity of the whistleblower—with a photograph, a name, and details about the purported political history of a CIA professional—Russian state media followed suit.

---

Holy shit you really are broken. "But Russia!"

You still can't just admit that the media literally threatening Trump and Rand Paul into silence is some fucked up shit. If people like you existed back in the day you all would be bashing Bob Woodward for receiving information from Deep Throat. Oh wait, no you wouldn't, because that implicated a Republican president, you're only in the business of defending Democrats apparently.

How do the balls of the collective DNC taste? Pretty salty I must imagine, but that seems to be your thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Rogue

I guess it's good your friendly Russian Media went ahead and printed it.

American news organizations resisted the pressure, but—in a 2019 re-play of “Russia, if you’re listening”—Kremlin-controlled state media promptly jumped on it.
Shortly after Sen. Paul tweeted out an article that speculated in considerable detail about the identity of the whistleblower—with a photograph, a name, and details about the purported political history of a CIA professional—Russian state media followed suit.

---

I can't follow your note here... are you saying the whistleblower has been exposed by Russia? If so, who is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Rogue

But you are plainly saying there is no law and I just posted that multiple Republican congressman think there is and support not reporting.

---

What's the law then? Can you cite the specific part of the law which states anyone and everyone who merely says the name of the whistleblower is going to be thrown in jail? Or are you like a good Democrat puppet and you just repeat what you are told without questioning it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Rogue

And how is not reporting something THREATENING anyone? Are you that simple?

---

A couple of """"journalists"""" have literally told Rand Paul to his face he will go to jail if he names the whistleblower. Do you just not pay attention at all or what?

No real dog in this fight. Would be chewed up and spit out prob.

But, dropping by with a few relevant facts:

1) Can I keep my identity confidential?
Yes. Most Inspectors General have hotlines that allow employees to make confidential disclosures. Inspectors General are prohibited from disclosing an employee’s identity unless the IG determines that disclosure is unavoidable or is compelled by a court order. If you file a disclosure with OSC, your identity will not be shared outside of OSC without your consent. However, OSC may disclose your identity only if OSC determines that it is necessary because of an imminent danger to public health or safety or an imminent violation of any criminal law.

Source: https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Insp...ow-Your-Rights

2) Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA)
The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) protects Federal employees and applicants

Source: https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Insp...ection-Act-WPA

3) And a little light reading if the discussion really wants to turn to the legal matters behind these summary points: 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)
Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...q=true&num=125

The path forward is very clear. To remove the protection of anonymity from the 'whistleblower', simply remove the appropriate IGs, insert loyal IGs, overturn the protected status of identity, and win. The code will protect against any retaliation, which is a criminal offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Risen

No real dog in this fight. Would be chewed up and spit out prob.

But, dropping by with a few relevant facts:

1) Can I keep my identity confidential?
Yes. Most Inspectors General have hotlines that allow employees to make confidential disclosures. Inspectors General are prohibited from disclosing an employee’s identity unless the IG determines that disclosure is unavoidable or is compelled by a court order. If you file a disclosure with OSC, your identity will not be shared outside of OSC without your consent. However, OSC may disclose your identity only if OSC determines that it is necessary because of an imminent danger to public health or safety or an imminent violation of any criminal law.

Source: https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Insp...ow-Your-Rights

2) Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA)
The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) protects Federal employees and applicants

Source: https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Insp...ection-Act-WPA

3) And a little light reading if the discussion really wants to turn to the legal matters behind these summary points: 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)
Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...q=true&num=125

The path forward is very clear. To remove the protection of anonymity from the 'whistleblower', simply remove the appropriate IGs, insert loyal IGs, overturn the protected status of identity, and win. The code will protect against any retaliation, which is a criminal offense.

---

I just skimmed the links so maybe I missed it but where does it state that it's against the law for anyone to name a whistleblower?

The best you have is the IG is prohibited from disclosing the identity, and even then there are exceptions.

That's the point. It's policy, not law, that prohibits the release of names. The policy is set to provide enforcement basis (can't retaliate if you don't know who) and encouragement (not afraid of retaliation if they don't know I did it). Even then, law doesn't compel, only policy does.

I found it interesting the commentary around it being unavoidable. I thought that'd be the area of most robust discussion. But - all that's why the path shown wins. A new IG sets the new policy and off you go. No law against it. No one will ever use that IG again, and there'll be some fights over legality. But by then, the name's already out there.