Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[rogue06]

By that logic, neither should Obama.

Nor any of those nominated by their parties over the past several decades.

[Sam]

Or........ was the intent to depoliticize the process by ensuring that "whistleblowers" couldn't run to Congress willy-nilly with unfounded rumors and gossip intended to hurt political rivals?

The problem with your interpretation is that the law doesn't say anything about the classification of information. But let's look at precedent: can you cite any prior instances where "whistleblowers" have been allowed to take it upon themselves to bypass the IC IG and and go directly to members of Congress simply because the information they had wasn't classified?

Well, then it's a good thing the whistleblower went through the ICIG!

The whistleblower never took the complaint to Congress, as outlined i the statute.

If you're trying to argue that the ICWPA doesn't deal with employees handling classified information in an abuse complaint, you are showcasing a rather incredible ignorance of what the law was all about.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Good practice for y'all:

Ask yourself "Why was this law enacted?" Was Congress trying to gag people from coming forward with allegations of abuse? Was it trying to make sure that IC employees couldn't share even non-classified information with people outside the IC? Or was Congress trying to fix a loophole in whistleblower protection laws that didn't take classified information into account?

If the former: you might have an argument regarding this case (but would still run afoul of 1A)

If the latter: there is no argument to be made and it's just a bad reading of the law from the start

(Hint: the legislative history shows that it's the latter)

--Sam

Or........ was the intent to depoliticize the process by ensuring that "whistleblowers" couldn't run to Congress willy-nilly with unfounded rumors and gossip intended to hurt political rivals?

The problem with your interpretation is that the law doesn't say anything about the classification of information. But let's look at precedent: can you cite any prior instances where "whistleblowers" have been allowed to take it upon themselves to bypass the IC IG and and go directly to members of Congress simply because the information they had wasn't classified?

[lilpixieofterror]

So, campaign finance law infraction, he should never have been president, correct.

By that logic, neither should Obama.

We already know he was a crook, immoral womanizing, con man. The question is about his presidency. What about since he's been in office, lilpix, what action do you think he is criminally guilty of?

None I have seen, unless making you insane is a crime.

[Teallaura]

Good practice for y'all:

...

Better practice - read the actual law and see what it actually says.

[Teallaura]

No, it doesn't, for all the reasons I mentioned and for the same reason that someone excitedly pointing to a libel statute over something that clearly doesn't count as libel isn't really worth trying to persuade. Can't reason someone out of a bad reading of law when they're not actually interested in the statute as a matter of law in the first place.

--Sam

Translation: oops, can't prove what I claimed so I'll just declare victory and run along...

[Sam]

Good practice for y'all:

Ask yourself "Why was this law enacted?" Was Congress trying to gag people from coming forward with allegations of abuse? Was it trying to make sure that IC employees couldn't share even non-classified information with people outside the IC? Or was Congress trying to fix a loophole in whistleblower protection laws that didn't take classified information into account?

If the former: you might have an argument regarding this case (but would still run afoul of 1A)

If the latter: there is no argument to be made and it's just a bad reading of the law from the start

(Hint: the legislative history shows that it's the latter)

--Sam

[Sam]

PROVE IT. Show me EXACTLY where the law says differently. The precise section - nothing less. Not your interpretation - the actual law.

If not, the point stands.

No, it doesn't, for all the reasons I mentioned and for the same reason that someone excitedly pointing to a libel statute over something that clearly doesn't count as libel isn't really worth trying to persuade. Can't reason someone out of a bad reading of law when they're not actually interested in the statute as a matter of law in the first place.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

Already pointed out the contextual misreading of the statutory language.

...

PROVE IT. Show me EXACTLY where the law says differently. The precise section - nothing less. Not your interpretation - the actual law.

If not, the point stands.

[Sam]

Content is irrelevant - go READ THE THING.

Heck, HERE: (C&P from MM)


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...nel-before-ig/

...the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 explicitly requires an official concerned about wrongdoing within the government to go to the IC inspector general before the congressional panels in charge of oversight of the intelligence community.

Under a section titled, “Summary of Procedures for Reporting Urgent Concerns Pursuant to the ICWPA,” the official Director of National Intelligence (DNI) website states:

The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –

a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
b. obtains and follows from the DNI, through the IC IG, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with necessary and appropriate security procedures.

...

*emphasis mine

No mention of classified material; states directly contacting CIC's requires IG approval. You are the one who 'is reading it wrong'.


In order to be protected by the Act, the person MUST FOLLOW THE ABOVE PROCEDURE. Contacting a member of the Intelligence Committee's office without the IG's okay VIOLATES that provision.

There is no whistle blower other than in name. The complainant gave up that protection when he/she contacted Schiff, regardless of whether classified material was involved.

Already pointed out the contextual misreading of the statutory language.

This is not unlike people who keep saying that something violates the Logan Act or how so-and-so can be prosecuted for RICO or libel or whatever by "just reading what the law says". The scope of the law matters, as does legislative intent. You can try arguing that Congress meant ICWPA as a gag order against any and all discussion of complaints, regardless of whether classified information is shared, but you'd be wrong and setting yourself up for a big legal disappointment. You can, conversely, read the statute as intended -- creating a lawful pathway for whistleblowers to share classified information in the course of an abuse complaint -- and understand what even the Republican chairs of relevant committees are saying, that the whistleblower followed proper protocol.

One of those makes sense and coexists fine with 1A protections. One is plainly unconstitutional and a torturous reading of the statute.

--Sam

[JimL]

Too bad none of that actually happened...

There are none so blind............

[JimL]

Paying off women he slept with, for one.

So, campaign finance law infraction, he should never have been president, correct.

Being a womanizer, for two. Being generally immoral, for three. I wouldn’t want to hang out with Trump or work directly for him either.

We already know he was a crook, immoral womanizing, con man. The question is about his presidency. What about since he's been in office, lilpix, what action do you think he is criminally guilty of?

[Teallaura]

It's not a violation if it doesn't contain classified or potentially classified information. If it were it'd be an unconstitutional law since people have an unambiguously clear right to free speech.

Y'all are just reading the thing wrong and trying to ignore the context of the law. If you think a judge would look at vague allegations of wrongdoing and call that a violation of ICWPA, that's on you. We're not going to get to put it to an objective test, of course, because even Barr's DOJ is never going to make a criminal referral, for obvious reasons.

Well, I take that back. Could very easily see Trump finding out the whistleblower's identity and retaliating, which would set up a civil lawsuit and there'd be the test right there. Since multiple members of congressional judiciary and intelligence committees have gone on record already to say the whistleblower followed the appropriate procedure, should be a quick hearing.

--Sam

Content is irrelevant - go READ THE THING.

Heck, HERE: (C&P from MM)


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...nel-before-ig/

...the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 explicitly requires an official concerned about wrongdoing within the government to go to the IC inspector general before the congressional panels in charge of oversight of the intelligence community.

Under a section titled, “Summary of Procedures for Reporting Urgent Concerns Pursuant to the ICWPA,” the official Director of National Intelligence (DNI) website states:

The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –

a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
b. obtains and follows from the DNI, through the IC IG, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with necessary and appropriate security procedures.

...

*emphasis mine

No mention of classified material; states directly contacting CIC's requires IG approval. You are the one who 'is reading it wrong'.


In order to be protected by the Act, the person MUST FOLLOW THE ABOVE PROCEDURE. Contacting a member of the Intelligence Committee's office without the IG's okay VIOLATES that provision.

There is no whistle blower other than in name. The complainant gave up that protection when he/she contacted Schiff, regardless of whether classified material was involved.

[Sam]

Violating the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 is breaking the law. The procedure is set forth in law - and both MM and BTC quoted the exact section so you darn well knew it wasn't mere departmental policy.

It's not a violation if it doesn't contain classified or potentially classified information. If it were it'd be an unconstitutional law since people have an unambiguously clear right to free speech.

Y'all are just reading the thing wrong and trying to ignore the context of the law. If you think a judge would look at vague allegations of wrongdoing and call that a violation of ICWPA, that's on you. We're not going to get to put it to an objective test, of course, because even Barr's DOJ is never going to make a criminal referral, for obvious reasons.

Well, I take that back. Could very easily see Trump finding out the whistleblower's identity and retaliating, which would set up a civil lawsuit and there'd be the test right there. Since multiple members of congressional judiciary and intelligence committees have gone on record already to say the whistleblower followed the appropriate procedure, should be a quick hearing.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

No, what Mountain Man said was that he broke the law, not that he didn't proceed through proper channels and therefore could be lawfully retaliated against. He didn't break the law and Republican senators Grassley and Burr have said as much. You're just reading the statute in a way it wasn't intended (for classified information contained in a whistleblower complaint to be revealed to Congress in a specific manner), for whatever reason. Go back and look at the legislative history and why the law was enacted for the proper context.

But, hey, I've hit pretty good marks for my judicial interpretations here of late so if and when the question ever gets to court, I'm willing to put some money down on it.

--Sam

Violating the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 is breaking the law. The procedure is set forth in law - and both MM and BTC quoted the exact section so you darn well knew it wasn't mere departmental policy.