Whistleblower

[schism666]

Quadruple Queenager! Everybody drink!

#LackOfImpulseControl
#HeTriesSoooHard

it's not even thanksgiving

 

[Carnal_Flower]

So you can't cite any statute, noted.

Quite the large turd of bullshit here. DId you just crap this out of your ass?

You really can't follow up basic line of thought can you BettyPoop? Whistleblower law exists for people who have to go outside of their chain of command because they have gone to their chain of command to no avail. Who you take that to is very clearly defined.

There is no provision whatsoever in US law much less whistleblower law for anyone to take classified information to someone who is not in their direct chain of command ,authorized to receive that classified information because of a specific need to know, what are the specific authority authorized to receive that information which in this case would be the Inspector General. Gossiping about it is not an approved remedy for you believing that there has been wrong doing and having felt that your superiors were not properly addressing it.

The Whistleblower statute has nothing at all to do with someone who has received classified information they were not authorized to receive. If it worked that way any human being on the planet who heard something from someone could call themselves a whistleblower, hurl some accusations and according to the new and improved enlarged whistleblower statute which doesn't include anything about anonymity, be protected by anonymity. Which again to repeat is not part of the Whistleblower statute at all.

Where was your concern when the Obama Administration was targeting actual whistleblowers such as in the Fast & Furious case?

 

[Conager]

Send in the clowns, there ought to be clowns.. . .

Right on cue, when BoomerDownSouth loses face.

 

[Conager]

So you can't cite any statute, noted.

Quite the large turd of bullshit here. DId you just crap this out of your ass?

No surprise you are fantasizing about feces, VeraBadBabyShitEater

 

[Gypsytag]

What got miss connie's panties in a bundle and so triggered?

Did she run out of meth?

 

[Conager]

As I said:

Send in the clowns, there ought to be clowns.. . .

Right on cue, when BoomerDownSouth loses face.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

What got miss connie's panties in a bundle and so triggered?

Did she run out of meth?

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/learn/substance-abuse-by-city/images/Meth-Use.jpg

 

[jomar]

Yet, for some reason Schiff doesn't want or need the WB to testify to those "urgent and credible" matters. Which kind of indicates that those "urgent and credible" things aren't validated. Otherwise one could reasonably suppose they'd be front and center of the controversy instead of suddenly taking a back burner position.

No real need for the whistleblower to testify. The report documented goings on and got the ball rolling. Shouting for the wb to show themselves is just noise.

I didn't say "eye" witness. I said "witness".

From there, the WB didn't "witness" anything except other people giving their opinions about something the WB wasn't cleared to hear.

Apparently, they didn’t need to be there, but we’re told a consistent story from disparate folk that built something credible they felt a duty to report.

The fact that some people gave the WB classified info without him being cleared to receive that info is troubling. I want to know who provided inside intel to the WB and what else they've been telling him and/or other people.

However, Schiff (and you) seem to be good with spewing classified information everywhere. Why is that when you're all uptight about national security all of a sudden?

If you don’t know who the wb is how do you they don’t have clearance?

It's front page news and no one is going to do your homework for you. If you're not conversant on the facts of the topic, sit down, STFU, and try to (quietly) keep up with the rest of the class.

LOL, Fox News. Got it.

That doesn't excuse them (the senate) from doing their jobs now. It seems to me that if they'd DO their dam jobs, they wouldn't have to be worried about saving their asses and jobs now would they?

Now that I agree with.

 

[Conager]

No real need for the whistleblower to testify. The report documented goings on and got the ball rolling. Shouting for the wb to show themselves is just noise.



Apparently, they didn’t need to be there, but we’re told a consistent story from disparate folk that built something credible they felt a duty to report.



If you don’t know who the wb is how do you they don’t have clearance?



LOL, Fox News. Got it.



Now that I agree with.

The "whisleblower," colluding with Adam Schiff and his staff came up with a phone call that he did not hear (the day after Mueller's testimony embarrassed them) as the impetus for Mueller 2.0

If he is not heard from, the public is not going to take this fishing expedition seriously.

If he does testify, the public is going to laugh at this partisan shit-show, so you are right to pretend the whistleblower is not pivotal to this shit-show.

 

[jaF0]

Republicans will just have to start their own investigation into the oranges of the impeachment inquiry. Good luck getting Barr to testify.

What are the "oranges of impeachment,"

Origins you blithering covefe.

 

[jaF0]

The "whisleblower," colluding with Adam Schiff and his staff

The witness inquired as to what the proper steps would be, you blithering covefe.

 

[jomar]

The "whisleblower," colluding with Adam Schiff and his staff came up with a phone call that he did not hear (the day after Mueller's testimony embarrassed them) as the impetus for Mueller 2.0

Yes, seeking procedural advice is colluding?

If he is not heard from, the public is not going to take this fishing expedition seriously.

If he does testify, the public is going to laugh at this partisan shit-show, so you are right to pretend the whistleblower is not pivotal to this shit-show.

I guess we’ll see how the public responds one way or the other.

 

[Conager]

Yes, seeking procedural advice is colluding?



I guess we’ll see how the public responds one way or the other.

Seeking "procedural advice" about a whistleblowing complaint that hasn't been filed about something that he didn't witness that he hasn't discussed with anyone in his chain of command? Yeah I would say that's collusion.

They sat down and plotted how they can make this sound like it's some sort of impeachable offense and here we are.

We already know how non Hillary Clinton voters feel about this. It doesn't look good and it's not going to look better after the "whistleblower," that none of you want the public to hear from, opens his mealy-mouth.

 

[phrodeau]

What are the "oranges of impeachment," and why aren't Coati the Boomer, BoomerDownSouth, and BoomerZumi concerned about that unintelligible sentence?

https://youtu.be/qUPsNgmXR7M

 

[Conager]

https://youtu.be/qUPsNgmXR7M

Touché

I hadn't seen that.

 

[jomar]

Seeking "procedural advice" about a whistleblowing complaint that hasn't been filed about something that he didn't witness that he hasn't discussed with anyone in his chain of command? Yeah I would say that's collusion.

They sat down and plotted how they can make this sound like it's some sort of impeachable offense and here we are.

We already know how non Hillary Clinton voters feel about this. It doesn't look good and it's not going to look better after the "whistleblower," that none of you want the public to hear from, opens his mealy-mouth.

You’re certain about all that? They sound more like Fox and Brietbart conspiracy theory talking points.

 

[Conager]

You’re certain about all that? They sound more like Fox and Brietbart conspiracy theory talking points.

You sound like you have no argument to advance.

.you also are projecting your own reliance on talking points. Watch Stephanopoulos much? You know, he popularized the idea of crafting "talking points" to keep those of you that Carville pointed out were easier to persuade, on message.

Your side's Reliance on talking points rather than in-depth discussion is why Air America failed and Rush Limbaugh is still on the air what? after three or so decades?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Anyone want to confirm that Whistleblowers not in the military need to report their information "up the chain of command?"

How about Whistleblowers cannot receive or report anything that involves "classified' information?

How about Whistleblowers are supposed to report to their bosses and only when nothing's done are they allowed to file a WB complaint?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61LbjMT7CoL.jpg

 

[jomar]

You sound like you have no argument to advance.

Lol, advance an argument against a tin foil hat conspiracy theory that you can’t back up?

.you also are projecting your own reliance on talking points. Watch Stephanopoulos much? You know, he popularized the idea of crafting "talking points" to keep those of you that Carville pointed out were easier to persuade, on message.

Your side's Reliance on talking points rather than in-depth discussion is why Air America failed and Rush Limbaugh is still on the air what? after three or so decades?

Holy shit! Do you ever read what you post or think it through beforehand? You just declared I had no rebuttal to your conspiracy theory then post this contradictory nonsense.

 

[Conager]

Lol, advance an argument against a tin foil hat conspiracy theory that you can’t back up?



Holy shit! Do you ever read what you post or think it through beforehand? You just declared I had no rebuttal to your conspiracy theory then post this contradictory nonsense.

OK, Boomer. . .

 

[jomar]

OK, Boomer. . .

Good to see you trying to keep up with the times.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No, you obviously don't have any facts.

You made a gratuitous assertion I denied your gratuitous assertion and now you're deflecting. Try again.

It is not a "quote" it is an aphorism. Have your teacher friend explain the difference to you.

Chuckles, still no facts from you yet

 

[Conager]

Chuckles, still no facts from you yet

No "facts" other than the "fact" that your gratuitous assertion that:

Seems a whole lot that dossier was confirmed, not some of the more salacious bits though. Well that was the news I read/heard/saw, from basically every news organization around the world, excepting Fox of course.

. . .was s gratuitous assertion.

You want me to show facts that prove that "A WHOLE LOT <of> THAT DOSSIER WAS <not> CONFIRMED?" I should prove a negative?


Ok, Gen-Xer.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Holy shit! Do you ever read what you post or think it through beforehand? You just declared I had no rebuttal to your conspiracy theory then post this contradictory nonsense.

He rarely thinks anything through. He's on one of his "100 shitposts a day" posting jags. 76 so far today.....

...the majority of 'em obsessing about me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No "facts" other than the "fact" that your gratuitous assertion that:



. . .was s gratuitous assertion.

You want me to show facts that prove that "A WHOLE LOT <of> THAT DOSSIER WAS <not> CONFIRMED?" I should prove a negative?


Ok, Gen-Xer.

Ok here, I'll give you some facts...little bit of a ______ are you? Getting all upset??

Chuckles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

I'll let the other fill in the blank....

BTW I am a Boomer...chuckles