New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Demand the identity of

afella

Mayor
There have been no reprisals against the leaker.

The only person subverting the law was the leaker who divulged the president's conversation with the President of Ukraine. The leakers in the White House also previously exposed the phone conversations of Trump with the leaders of Australia and Mexico.

I'd like you to be really honest and tell me when you've EVER heard of another American President's phone conversations with world leaders being exposed through leaking??

But here you are contending that it is not only fair but the proper thing to do.

If you're comfortable subverting presidential protections and you're good with the precedent that has been set then don't complain when all future US presidents have their phone conversations leaked as well.

I, for one, am not.

On a side note..... are you aware that Obama prosecuted more whisltleblowers than all presidents prior to him?? I am going to assume you were just fine with that. You noticeable lack of outrage is apparent.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-whistleblower-prosecutions-press_n_3091137

https://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-crackdown-whistleblowers/
To be honest most of this administration is full of firsts.

Yes, if a person has knowledge that a president is potentially misusing their power in phone calls, I'm all for it. Then theres an investigation, and the chips fall where they may.

Presidents have far to much power, and far to many protections. ANYTHING to curtail that power and those protections is welcome on my part.

I'm sorry you understand my opposition to the current administration, an attempted dictatorship, as a love for obama. Obama's treatment of whistle blowers, and the expansion of the intelligence community (along with Bush), is abhorrent at the best. Treasonous in my opinion. But neither democrats or republicans care about that.

Anything that maintains or brings power back to the people of this country and limits or severely restricts a politician's power is a positive. I would say it's necessary. Like I said, so called conservatives dont care about that any more, atleast not when it isnt politically beneficial. Hell liberals dont anymore either.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
To be honest most of this administration is full of firsts.

Yes, if a person has knowledge that a president is potentially misusing their power in phone calls, I'm all for it. Then theres an investigation, and the chips fall where they may.

Presidents have far to much power, and far to many protections. ANYTHING to curtail that power and those protections is welcome on my part.

I'm sorry you understand my opposition to the current administration, an attempted dictatorship, as a love for obama. Obama's treatment of whistle blowers, and the expansion of the intelligence community (along with Bush), is abhorrent at the best. Treasonous in my opinion. But neither democrats or republicans care about that.

Anything that maintains or brings power back to the people of this country and limits or severely restricts a politician's power is a positive. I would say it's necessary. Like I said, so called conservatives dont care about that any more, atleast not when it isnt politically beneficial. Hell liberals dont anymore either.
All anyone cares about anymore is getting back at the other party. I freely admit I am part of the problem.
 

afella

Mayor
All anyone cares about anymore is getting back at the other party. I freely admit I am part of the problem.
Political parties are basically cults now. It will do our country in. Its pathetic really. I like some stuff trumps done, I like some stuff obama did. I would try to never fail to call either out on their BS, that's lacking in today's world as well. Everyone talks about the constitution, they just talk about it in the wrong way. It's a limit on what the government cant do, not how much the government can or should do according to political ideology.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
The whistleblower act provides protections against reprisals against said whistleblower. That's it.

You do know that there is NO statute in it that guarantees or protects the whistleblower's identity don't you? The whistleblower has NO guarantee of anonymity as it is not part of the WPA. So assuming you didn't know that .....you do now.

Too bad for the whistleblower. ....or in this case the leaker.

So if you're going to subvert the president by leaking his phone calls with world leaders you should expect scrutiny. In fact you should be prepared for it.
Excuse me, the whistle blower has a limited guarantee. Read it again.

Inspectors General are prohibited from disclosing an employee’s identity unless the IG determines that disclosure is unavoidable or is compelled by a court order. If you file a disclosure with OSC, your identity will not be shared outside of OSC without your consent. However, OSC may disclose your identity only if OSC determines that it is necessary because of an imminent danger to public health or safety or an imminent violation of any criminal law.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
Excuse me, the whistle blower has a limited guarantee. Read it again.

Inspectors General are prohibited from disclosing an employee’s identity unless the IG determines that disclosure is unavoidable or is compelled by a court order. If you file a disclosure with OSC, your identity will not be shared outside of OSC without your consent. However, OSC may disclose your identity only if OSC determines that it is necessary because of an imminent danger to public health or safety or an imminent violation of any criminal law.
So anyone but the IG can reveal the DNC operative's identity. We already knew that. But thanks for pointing out you also realize this.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
Probably not. The Secret Identities Act is pretty specific about who is protected.
I just saw your response. I don't know, MV, what do we know what this guys job was going to be when he went to the CIA? From what I've read, he's no longer with the CIA after his picture was plastered all over the internet. If he was simply going to be a desk jockey analyst, his identity being exposed wouldn't matter. Look at what happened to Valerie Plame?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I just saw your response. I don't know, MV, what do we know what this guys job was going to be when he went to the CIA? From what I've read, he's no longer with the CIA after his picture was plastered all over the internet. If he was simply going to be a desk jockey analyst, his identity being exposed wouldn't matter. Look at what happened to Valerie Plame?
Plame was absolurely covert...complete with a cover employer. The individual we are talking about may well have been harassed...but a danger to covert assets is not likely.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
Plame was absolurely covert...complete with a cover employer. The individual we are talking about may well have been harassed...but a danger to covert assets is not likely.
I realize that, what I am saying is his career is now ended. Had he not been outed he would still be at the CIA, and like I said being outed wouldn't matter much to a desk jockey. How long was he at the CIA, and in what capacity.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I realize that, what I am saying is his career is now ended. Had he not been outed he would still be at the CIA, and like I said being outed wouldn't matter much to a desk jockey. How long was he at the CIA, and in what capacity.
You miss my point. Read the Secret Identities Act. I don't know enough about why he left, if there were adverse reactions from co-workers or supervisors.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
the whistle blower? Gee, has anyone read the Whistle Blowers Act, by chance?

Inspectors General are prohibited from disclosing an employee’s identity unless the IG determines that disclosure is unavoidable or is compelled by a court order. If you file a disclosure with OSC, your identity will not be shared outside of OSC without your consent. However, OSC may disclose your identity only if OSC determines that it is necessary because of an imminent danger to public health or safety or an imminent violation of any criminal law.
The media is allowed to name Eric Ciaramella as the pretend whistleblowjober as am I

Next
 
Top