Whistleblower retaliation

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Do protections for "whistleblowers" extend to the Federal Government as it does for businesses?

I absolutely see Trump's reasoning. If you can't trust those you appoint, then you can't operate effectively. However, I also wouldn't want to set a precedent that might stifle people from speaking up in the future if our leaders were actually doing things they're not supposed to. Kind of a double edged sword IMO.
 

Greg T.

The Jazz Singer
Do protections for "whistleblowers" extend to the Federal Government as it does for businesses?

I absolutely see Trump's reasoning. If you can't trust those you appoint, then you can't operate effectively. However, I also wouldn't want to set a precedent that might stifle people from speaking up in the future if our leaders were actually doing things they're not supposed to. Kind of a double edged sword IMO.

I'm not in favor of anonymous whistle blowers at all. If someone has something to say about someone they should have the fucking balls to face them and say it. This is bullshit. There is nothing I would say behind someones back that I would not say to their face, and I think those that do are chicken shit fuckers.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
The way the recent plot played out, I agree. Although, I do get anonymity to a point. Once charges are filed and testimony begins, the defendant should have the right to face their accuser in court.

Laws on the books already protect (supposedly) employees for reporting unscrupulous behavior. Not sure how those protections may or may not work in Washington though.
 

Djarum300

Well-Known Member
I'm not in favor of anonymous whistle blowers at all. If someone has something to say about someone they should have the fucking balls to face them and say it. This is bullshit. There is nothing I would say behind someones back that I would not say to their face, and I think those that do are chicken shit fuckers.
Sorry, but that's not how it should work. People in power will retaliate. If men in power knew who the women accusers of sexual harrasment then it would never get reported.

If the allegations and investigation warrant an actual trial and the testimony by that accuser is the only evidence, then sure, as that individual would have to testify.
 

Djarum300

Well-Known Member
The way the recent plot played out, I agree. Although, I do get anonymity to a point. Once charges are filed and testimony begins, the defendant should have the right to face their accuser in court.

Laws on the books already protect (supposedly) employees for reporting unscrupulous behavior. Not sure how those protections may or may not work in Washington though.
Whistle blower anonymity only holds if prosecutors have enough evidence without the testimony of the Whistler blower.

Also Whistle blower is typically given when a corporation is being accused, not a single person.

Whistle blower status afaik only applies in a judicial court and investigation, not congressional proceedings.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
I'm not in favor of anonymous whistle blowers at all. If someone has something to say about someone they should have the fucking balls to face them and say it. This is bullshit. There is nothing I would say behind someones back that I would not say to their face, and I think those that do are chicken shit fuckers.
Dear Greg T:

I agree fully with what you said, although my wording would be a lot different.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
The way the recent plot played out, I agree. Although, I do get anonymity to a point. Once charges are filed and testimony begins, the defendant should have the right to face their accuser in court.
Dear 9andaWiggle:

Indeed, the right to face an accuser in court is fundamental in our system of justice.
 

REVerse °

Well-Known Member
How can there be a whistleblower when no one knows who the whistleblower is?

Whistleblower says such and such, but someone has to report it. SO someone has to know where it originated. How do you prosecute someone if no one knows the plaintiff. An accusation out of thin air? It's absurd. It's an invisible person. A ghost. A make believe entity.

This whistleblower law needs to be clarified.
 

Greg T.

The Jazz Singer
How can there be a whistleblower when no one knows who the whistleblower is?

Whistleblower says such and such, but someone has to report it. SO someone has to know where it originated. How do you prosecute someone if no one knows the plaintiff. An accusation out of thin air? It's absurd. It's an invisible person. A ghost. A make believe entity.

This whistleblower law needs to be clarified.
Not only that, according to Shifty Schiff, the whistle blower was receiving death threats!!
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Not only that, according to Shifty Schiff, the whistle blower was receiving death threats!!
Dear Greg T:

Schiff knows all about the whistleblower, but he doesn't know who he is? And of course, Shifty and his lying Democrat friends don't know either?
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Shifty Schiff should be glad that the Republicans weren't in favor of witnesses, because HE would have been a primary fact witness, and the whistleblower situation would have been blown wide open!
 

Greg T.

The Jazz Singer
Shifty Schiff should be glad that the Republicans weren't in favor of witnesses, because HE would have been a primary fact witness, and the whistleblower situation would have been blown wide open!
He KNEW that would never fly and that's why he pushed for it. Made him look tough while feeling safe
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
He KNEW that would never fly and that's why he pushed for it. Made him look tough while feeling safe
Dear Greg T:

Indeed, and Shifty thought he could "make hay" regarding the call transcript content, but then Trump turned the tables by releasing it.
 

Djarum300

Well-Known Member
Dear 9andaWiggle:

Indeed, the right to face an accuser in court is fundamental in our system of justice.
Not in all situations. If a whistle blower brings evidence to a prosecutor which then warrants a subpoena and records show fraud, then the evidence is enough. It's similar to a confidential informant as CIs rarely have to testify.
 

Greg T.

The Jazz Singer
Not in all situations. If a whistle blower brings evidence to a prosecutor which then warrants a subpoena and records show fraud, then the evidence is enough. It's similar to a confidential informant as CIs rarely have to testify.
This isn't the case with the impeachment. ALL the evidence, subpoenas and warrants were ill-gotten and illegal. Whistleblower should be arrested for filing a false statement.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
This isn't the case with the impeachment. ALL the evidence, subpoenas and warrants were ill-gotten and illegal. Whistleblower should be arrested for filing a false statement.
... and yes, the impeachment subpoenas were ILLEGAL because they needed to be approved by a majority vote of the full House, and that didn't happen!
 
Top