• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Grassley breaks with Trump over protecting whistleblower

sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
It does not take a 2/3 vote necessarily, but a few Republicans who vote to convict after an impeachment trial to utterly change the political dynamic in spite of the inevitable whining of traitor that would result

Grassley breaks with Trump over protecting whistleblower

“They all say they’re going to respect whistleblowers but they end up not doing it,” Grassley said of administration officials. “ Every cabinet person that comes in is well intended about protecting whistleblowers and then they’re treated like a skunk at a picnic.”
 
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
And in what I find as interesting news, it looks like the dam is breaking for real
@rachaelmbade

IMPEACHMENT LATEST: After @SecPompeo told Ds his officials won't comply w/their requests, State employees appear to be DEFYING Pompeo. 1st: Volker says he will testify. Yovanovitch too. & now @karoun @John_Hudson report the State IG is coming 2 Hill tomorrow to turn over docs
 
tigrers2019

tigrers2019

Member
The weird behaviour of the Republicans has now been shown to be due to Russian influence because their Oligarchs are very desperate to get the sanctions lifted that were put in place by the congress prior to 2017, for invading Ukraine.
Mitch McConnell, I think, was the first congressman to openly become a Russian asset. Pompeo I think was the 2nd, and congressman Lindsey Graham the 3rd.

The entire White House activity now with the sending out the U.S Attorney General to other countries to try to find counter evidence of Russian election interference of 2016, is the result of Putin applying pressure on Trump to get congress to drop the sanctions before the 2020 election.

Even if the Ukraine issue is settled in Putin's favor, we are not out of danger. 3/4 of our government is now controlled by Russia.

The News Media never comes out and tells us that these politicians have been blackmailed by the Russians, they just talk all around it. They name every other reason but the only obvious one left. We are expected to 'read between the lines'.
Evidently they expect the general public to bring this horror story to a close.
 
Enoch07

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
sun rise said:
It does not take a 2/3 vote necessarily, but a few Republicans who vote to convict after an impeachment trial to utterly change the political dynamic in spite of the inevitable whining of traitor that would result

Grassley breaks with Trump over protecting whistleblower

“They all say they’re going to respect whistleblowers but they end up not doing it,” Grassley said of administration officials. “ Every cabinet person that comes in is well intended about protecting whistleblowers and then they’re treated like a skunk at a picnic.”
Click to expand...

Well the "whistleblower" is not a legitimate whistleblower. They reported heresay. In order to be protected by whistleblower they have to have direct first hand knowledge of the issue they are reporting.


Sorry but the "whistleblower" is fair play. Hopefully he/she will be prosecuted and thrown in jail.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have heard that FOX News is spouting some nonsense about hearsay:

"President Donald Trump and some of his defenders have advanced a bogus theory that whistleblower rules were changed to allow a complaint alleging misconduct by the president to be forwarded to Congress based only on secondhand information.

There was no such change in law or policy, according to a Sept. 30 statement issued by the independent Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

“In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint,” the three-page statement said."


No Hearsay Rule Change for Whistleblowers
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Enoch07 said:
Well the "whistleblower" is not a legitimate whistleblower. They reported heresay. In order to be protected by whistleblower they have to have direct first hand knowledge of the issue they are reporting.

Sorry but the "whistleblower" is fair play. Hopefully he/she will be prosecuted and thrown in jail.
Click to expand...
So here's yet another Trump team talking point that's pretty much all wrong.

The notion that since the whistleblower didn't have first-hand knowledge of the events they shouldn't have filed a complaint is absurd. The role of the whistleblower is to report any knowledge of wrongdoing within the federal government to the Inspector General's Office. The next step is for the IG to review the complaint and if warranted, investigate the claims. In this specific case, that's exactly what the Intelligence Community Inspector General did. He, a Trump appointee, reviewed the complaint, interviewed witnesses, and concluded that the evidence supported the complaint and that it was therefore "urgent and credible". That little tidbit is something you won't hear team Trump mention very often. So when you see them go on about "hearsay" and "second-hand information", just remind them that the IC IG did interview people with first-hand information and concluded that their testimony verified the whistleblowers accounts.

Also, the argument that all whistleblowers must have first-hand knowledge of events or else they can't file a complaint is simply not in the law or regulations at all. If Trump supports think otherwise, then they need to show where that requirement appears in the law or federal regulations regarding whistleblowers.
 
Enoch07

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Jose Fly said:
The notion that since the whistleblower didn't have first-hand knowledge of the events they shouldn't have filed a complaint is absurd.
Click to expand...

Inccorect.

Jose Fly said:
The role of the whistleblower is to report any credible knowledge of wrongdoing within the federal government to the Inspector General's Office.
Click to expand...

There I fixed your post. Hearsay is not credible. End of story that's the law.
 
Riders

Riders

Well-Known Member
Enoch07 said:
Well the "whistleblower" is not a legitimate whistleblower. They reported heresay. In order to be protected by whistleblower they have to have direct first hand knowledge of the issue they are reporting.
It'll never happen dream on.

Sorry but the "whistleblower" is fair play. Hopefully he/she will be prosecuted and thrown in jail.
Click to expand...
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Enoch07 said:
Inccorect.



There I fixed your post. Hearsay is not credible. End of story that's the law.
Click to expand...


Chuck Grassley diasgrees with you. He helped write the whistleblower laws.

"Grassley, who chairs the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus and has worked extensively on whistleblower protection laws during his time in Congress, also pushed back on the notion that the complaint should be discarded because it consists of secondhand information.
"When it comes to whether someone qualifies as a whistleblower, the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren't legal ones," Grassley said. "It's just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim's credibility."

The whistleblower drew from more than half a dozen officials, according to the declassified version of the complaint."
Chuck Grassley breaks with Trump, says whistleblower 'ought to be heard out and protected' - CNNPolitics


The Office of the Inspector General disagrees with you.

"In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations. The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Enoch07 said:
Inccorect.
There I fixed your post. Hearsay is not credible. End of story that's the law.
Click to expand...
But since the whistle-blower named the names and sources of what he/she heard, the impeachment is going to bring those people in and ask them. That's what the hearings are for, to substantiate the claim. If they confirm the information, then the information will be firsthand knowledge. If they deny the allegations, yeah, then the whistle-blower could be in trouble. Also, the transcript given by the White House does confirm to some degree what the whistle-blower reported.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Enoch07 said:
There I fixed your post. Hearsay is not credible. End of story that's the law.
Click to expand...
If a police officer gets a report that somebody heard someone planing to do a mass shooting, do you think that should be ignored? Hearsay, end of story? Lives have been saved because officials have investigated hearsay reports, like they are supposed to do.

You are just wrong on multiple levels. First, the whistleblower report contains first hand testimony as well as second hand reports. And even second hand reports are explicitly admissible in a whistleblower report, and for good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top