Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[lilpixieofterror]

Because whistle-blowers are protected from retaliation through anonymity. That protection is necessary to make it possible for whistle-blowers to exist. It really isn't all that complicated. And this is not democrat/republican. This is just how these laws work.

And if you doubt the need for such laws, then all you need to do is consider what happens to people who blow the whistle on powerful people where their identifies are well known.

say - journalists in Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lled_in_Russia

or consider this article on whistle-blowing:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellypo.../#7bff2ec36a9b

consider:

Source: above

Years later, I learned that the Space Shuttle Challenger could have been prevented if only the whistle-blower was heard. Whistle-blower Roger Boisjoly tried to warn NASA the night before the launch that the O rings would fail if the shuttle was launched in cold weather. No one listened. After Boisjoly testified to the Rogers Commission about his research findings, Boisjoly was shunned by his colleagues and faced extreme retaliation. He later resigned from his company due to the pressure of being labeled a whistle-blower. Boisjoly was trying to save 7 innocent lives. Should he be classified as a snitch?

© Copyright Original Source

or perhaps this from the same article:

Source: above

Another person I met while conducting these interviews was whistle-blower Mary Willingham. If you were to google Mary’s name you will see that she is the person that exposed the 20-year UNC academic fraud case. Mary was a learning specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and noticed that students, particularly student athletes, with low reading abilities were turning in research papers that appeared well beyond their reading levels. After asking a few questions, she discovered a system that was designed to keep student athletes primarily eligible to play sports. Mary was outraged and proceeded to tell her supervisor. When speaking to her supervisor didn’t work, she attempted to speak to internal university administrators but again, no one did anything about it. She decided to blog about her observations and the blog went viral in 24 hours. She then teamed up with reporter Dan Kane and together they exposed the story. Mary believed that she was doing the right thing by speaking up for students who otherwise felt voiceless. Mary did not do anything wrong. She didn’t create nor participate in the fraud scandal and yet, she was isolated, demoted and received numerous death threats over…NCAA collegiate sports.

© Copyright Original Source

People like Donald Trump WILL retaliate against anyone that sheds a bad light on him, let alone someone that actually endangers him by exposing his private misdeeds. And as president, he has nearly limitless resources in terms of what form that retaliation could take. And so this person needs our protection and he needs his anonymity. The facts will be investigated, and Trump will only have anything to worry about if what the whistle-blower has said turns out to be true.



Jim

You helped Sam kill 10 people according to my source. See you in 30 years.

[lilpixieofterror]

Whistleblowers aren't named in order that they be protected from retaliation, not to mention from whack jobs like many Trump supporters. Whistleblowers simply give the evidence to the IG who himself determines the necessity of the need to investigate, which he does. It is the IG, not the whistlblower, who, finding the info evidential, turns it over to Congress, not the whistleblower. And the vote on the floor will come when the articles of impeachment are determined. That's how it works.

I heard, from a source, you helped Sam do it. See you in 15 years.

[lilpixieofterror]

Maybe if you find yourself on the side of the President who calls the whistleblower a "spy" and has already launched numerous retaliatory campaigns against career officials who have had a part in uncovering his corrupt acts and you don't think this whistleblower has a legitimate reason to remain anonymous to the President ... well, then you have to ask yourself "Are we the baddies?"

--Sam

I heard you’re a serial killer from an second hand source that claims he heard it from a member of your family. Hope you enjoy your prison sentence because don’t worry, you can’t face your accuser because they fear you’ll kill them and their families. See you in 30 years to never.

[Mountain Man]

Andy McCabe lost his job just before retirement and the DOJ reportedly tried to indict him, only to be handed a rare refusal by a grand jury. He's currently suing the government for wrongful termination and there's a good chance he'll win.

As usual, it's not as simple as that...

Again, as with the earlier Strzok lawsuit, both are not going through the process within the Department of Labor for a wrongful termination complaint. Instead both are using federal courts in an effort to construct a narrative of sorts.

The motive here is 100% political obfuscation, and the same Lawfare team is involved in the construct.

Both Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok are claiming their first amendment (speech) and fifth amendment (due process) rights were violated. Both have filed civil suits under the same pretext. However, McCabe’s Lawfare lawyers construct an argument that goes one step further.

According to Andrew McCabe, President Donald Trump constructed a master conspiracy of influence upon the DOJ and FBI; thereby usurping the powers of the constitution in a sketchy legal theory they cannot define. Thus the McCabe lawyers define the action by President Trump under “legal nullity” – An operation that theoretically is, or might be, of some legal significance, but in fact lacks any identity or distinct structure of its own.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...n-against-him/

...guys like you would just be arguing that they deserved it...

It's always a good idea to base one's arguments around unfounded assumptions about how one's opponent might or might not respond to a hypothetical scenario.

[seer]

People like Donald Trump WILL retaliate against anyone that sheds a bad light on him, let alone someone that actually endangers him by exposing his private misdeeds. And as president, he has nearly limitless resources in terms of what form that retaliation could take. And so this person needs our protection and he needs his anonymity. The facts will be investigated, and Trump will only have anything to worry about if what the whistle-blower has said turns out to be true.



Jim

So you like the fact that an impeachment inquiry to remove a President has been done in secret so far? The Dems won't even release Volker's testimony. The Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch is now testifying behind close doors. A true Star Chamber Jim, no matter how you cut it...

[Teallaura]

Ya know, at this point, all the House has to do is have a floor vote and issue real subpoenas - if the Admin refuses to comply, they have a danged good case for cover up.

But they're too busy with the smoke and mirrors.

The whistle blower can't stay hidden much longer - too much is already known and it's just a matter of time before his/her ID comes out. Some reporter will find it - or the Senate will demand public testimony - I'm betting on the reporter at this point - some one is gonna figure it out and leak it.

Heck, it could happen in a court fight - assuming the House wants to try and enforce any of its current demands - the basis of the subpoena becomes fair game.

The only end game I see is to throw out articles - but at this point, it's premature and the Senate could lob it back in their faces with a dismissal (once this crap hits the Senate, they can dismiss for cause - and highlight the House Democrat skulduggery). So, they drag on to avoid looking like amateurs while looking like partisan hacks.

[firstfloor]

The plot is being laid bare:

Two Florida businessmen tied to President Donald Trump’s lawyer and the Ukraine impeachment investigation were charged with federal campaign finance violations.

The charges Thursday relate to a $325,000 donation to a group supporting Trump’s reelection.

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, associates of Rudy Giuliani, were arrested Wednesday trying to board an international flight with one-way tickets at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, according to Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan.

Parnas and Fruman were arrested on a four-count indictment that includes charges of conspiracy, making false statements to the Federal Election Commission and falsification of records. The men had key roles in Giuliani’s efforts to launch a Ukrainian corruption investigation against Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

https://apnews.com/c9125e9ccd894965bbf2860100366779

[Sam]

Andy McCabe lost his job just before retirement and the DOJ reportedly tried to indict him, only to be handed a rare refusal by a grand jury. He's currently suing the government for wrongful termination and there's a good chance he'll win.

We've already seen Trump retaliate and we've already seen the damage it causes. If the whistleblower were unmasked tomorrow, lost their job on Monday, and spent the next five years fending off death threats while paying a fortune in legal fees associated with suing the government, guys like you would just be arguing that they deserved it, latching onto any half-brained conspiracy to justify the animus.

--Sam

Specious reasoning. Retaliation can only really happen in secret and not when it's a national news story that everybody is talking about. Seriously, if the dude's identity was announced today, and Trump were to then make some retaliatory move against him, how do you think that would play for Trump?

But beyond that, there's the matter that if answers are submitted anonymously in writing then House members will not be allowed to assess the witnesses credentials and credibility, or observe his demeanor under questioning; and what guarantee is there that the anonymous answers are really coming directly from the witness himself and aren't being parsed by his lawyers first, or prepared by a committee, possibly with input from members of Congress and others who have a vested interest in him delivering the "correct" answers?

Again I say, if they can pull this on the President of the United States then what's to stop them from pulling it on you?

[Mountain Man]

Because whistle-blowers are protected from retaliation through anonymity. That protection is necessary to make it possible for whistle-blowers to exist. It really isn't all that complicated. And this is not democrat/republican. This is just how these laws work.

And if you doubt the need for such laws, then all you need to do is consider what happens to people who blow the whistle on powerful people where their identifies are well known.

say - journalists in Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lled_in_Russia

or consider this article on whistle-blowing:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellypo.../#7bff2ec36a9b

consider:

Source: above

Years later, I learned that the Space Shuttle Challenger could have been prevented if only the whistle-blower was heard. Whistle-blower Roger Boisjoly tried to warn NASA the night before the launch that the O rings would fail if the shuttle was launched in cold weather. No one listened. After Boisjoly testified to the Rogers Commission about his research findings, Boisjoly was shunned by his colleagues and faced extreme retaliation. He later resigned from his company due to the pressure of being labeled a whistle-blower. Boisjoly was trying to save 7 innocent lives. Should he be classified as a snitch?

© Copyright Original Source

or perhaps this from the same article:

Source: above

Another person I met while conducting these interviews was whistle-blower Mary Willingham. If you were to google Mary’s name you will see that she is the person that exposed the 20-year UNC academic fraud case. Mary was a learning specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and noticed that students, particularly student athletes, with low reading abilities were turning in research papers that appeared well beyond their reading levels. After asking a few questions, she discovered a system that was designed to keep student athletes primarily eligible to play sports. Mary was outraged and proceeded to tell her supervisor. When speaking to her supervisor didn’t work, she attempted to speak to internal university administrators but again, no one did anything about it. She decided to blog about her observations and the blog went viral in 24 hours. She then teamed up with reporter Dan Kane and together they exposed the story. Mary believed that she was doing the right thing by speaking up for students who otherwise felt voiceless. Mary did not do anything wrong. She didn’t create nor participate in the fraud scandal and yet, she was isolated, demoted and received numerous death threats over…NCAA collegiate sports.

© Copyright Original Source

People like Donald Trump WILL retaliate against anyone that sheds a bad light on him, let alone someone that actually endangers him by exposing his private misdeeds. And as president, he has nearly limitless resources in terms of what form that retaliation could take. And so this person needs our protection and he needs his anonymity. The facts will be investigated, and Trump will only have anything to worry about if what the whistle-blower has said turns out to be true.



Jim

Specious reasoning. Retaliation can only really happen in secret and not when it's a national news story that everybody is talking about. Seriously, if the dude's identity was announced today, and Trump were to then make some retaliatory move against him, how do you think that would play for Trump?

But beyond that, there's the matter that if answers are submitted anonymously in writing then House members will not be allowed to assess the witnesses credentials and credibility, or observe his demeanor under questioning; and what guarantee is there that the anonymous answers are really coming directly from the witness himself and aren't being parsed by his lawyers first, or prepared by a committee, possibly with input from members of Congress and others who have a vested interest in him delivering the "correct" answers?

Again I say, if they can pull this on the President of the United States then what's to stop them from pulling it on you?

[Mountain Man]

Than why do we not know the name of the whistleblower and why are proceedings happening behind closed doors, without a vote on the house floor? Your apologetics, for Democrats, is truly touching.

Bingo... it's the folks cheering on this secretive behind-closed-doors kangaroo court proceeding that cause me the greatest concern for the future of our country.

[Mountain Man]

You're only objecting to secret witnesses testifying against you because you have something to hide!

It's a classic kafkatrap. The only way out is to concede one's guilt!

[oxmixmudd]

Than why do we not know the name of the whistleblower and why are proceedings happening behind closed doors, without a vote on the house floor? Your apologetics, for Democrats, is truly touching.

Because whistle-blowers are protected from retaliation through anonymity. That protection is necessary to make it possible for whistle-blowers to exist. It really isn't all that complicated. And this is not democrat/republican. This is just how these laws work.

And if you doubt the need for such laws, then all you need to do is consider what happens to people who blow the whistle on powerful people where their identifies are well known.

say - journalists in Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lled_in_Russia

or consider this article on whistle-blowing:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellypo.../#7bff2ec36a9b

consider:

Source: above

Years later, I learned that the Space Shuttle Challenger could have been prevented if only the whistle-blower was heard. Whistle-blower Roger Boisjoly tried to warn NASA the night before the launch that the O rings would fail if the shuttle was launched in cold weather. No one listened. After Boisjoly testified to the Rogers Commission about his research findings, Boisjoly was shunned by his colleagues and faced extreme retaliation. He later resigned from his company due to the pressure of being labeled a whistle-blower. Boisjoly was trying to save 7 innocent lives. Should he be classified as a snitch?

© Copyright Original Source

or perhaps this from the same article:

Source: above

Another person I met while conducting these interviews was whistle-blower Mary Willingham. If you were to google Mary’s name you will see that she is the person that exposed the 20-year UNC academic fraud case. Mary was a learning specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and noticed that students, particularly student athletes, with low reading abilities were turning in research papers that appeared well beyond their reading levels. After asking a few questions, she discovered a system that was designed to keep student athletes primarily eligible to play sports. Mary was outraged and proceeded to tell her supervisor. When speaking to her supervisor didn’t work, she attempted to speak to internal university administrators but again, no one did anything about it. She decided to blog about her observations and the blog went viral in 24 hours. She then teamed up with reporter Dan Kane and together they exposed the story. Mary believed that she was doing the right thing by speaking up for students who otherwise felt voiceless. Mary did not do anything wrong. She didn’t create nor participate in the fraud scandal and yet, she was isolated, demoted and received numerous death threats over…NCAA collegiate sports.

© Copyright Original Source

People like Donald Trump WILL retaliate against anyone that sheds a bad light on him, let alone someone that actually endangers him by exposing his private misdeeds. And as president, he has nearly limitless resources in terms of what form that retaliation could take. And so this person needs our protection and he needs his anonymity. The facts will be investigated, and Trump will only have anything to worry about if what the whistle-blower has said turns out to be true.



Jim

[JimL]

Than why do we not know the name of the whistleblower and why are proceedings happening behind closed doors, without a vote on the house floor? Your apologetics, for Democrats, is truly touching.

Whistleblowers aren't named in order that they be protected from retaliation, not to mention from whack jobs like many Trump supporters. Whistleblowers simply give the evidence to the IG who himself determines the necessity of the need to investigate, which he does. It is the IG, not the whistlblower, who, finding the info evidential, turns it over to Congress, not the whistleblower. And the vote on the floor will come when the articles of impeachment are determined. That's how it works.

[Sam]

Than why do we not know the name of the whistleblower and why are proceedings happening behind closed doors, without a vote on the house floor? Your apologetics, for Democrats, is truly touching.

Maybe if you find yourself on the side of the President who calls the whistleblower a "spy" and has already launched numerous retaliatory campaigns against career officials who have had a part in uncovering his corrupt acts and you don't think this whistleblower has a legitimate reason to remain anonymous to the President ... well, then you have to ask yourself "Are we the baddies?"

--Sam

[firstfloor]

Well done Marie Yovanovitch. Pompeo proves what a low life he is.