Schiff’s claim that the whistleblower
has a ‘statutory right’ to anonymity
Washington Post,
by
Salvador Rizzo
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
11/20/2019 5:18:32 PM
“I am concerned about a bad-faith effort to out a whistleblower who has a statutory right to remain anonymous.”— Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), in a closed-door deposition of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Oct. 29, 2019 “The whistleblower has a right to anonymity. There are public reports that the life of the whistleblower has been threatened. We do not want this committee used, or this testimony used, to try to exact political retribution against the whistleblower.”(Snip) Does the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump have a “statutory right” to remain anonymous, as Schiff claims?
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Mushroom 11/20/2019 5:20:57 PM (No. 240649)
Super! And that Statute is?
12 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
GoodDeal 11/20/2019 5:30:04 PM (No. 240657)
Why were the rules changed that now allows hearsay evidence to substantiate a whistleblower claim, where months ago hearsay was not allowed as evidence? I believe anyone accused of crimes has the right to confront the accuser. Unless this is Cuba or China.
27 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
MindMadeUp 11/20/2019 5:40:14 PM (No. 240672)
In this performance, the WaPo branch of the Democrat Party's Marketing Department has its toady, Rizzo, do a song and tap dance routine amid a room full of mirrors with smoke and flashing lights.
7 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
skacmar 11/20/2019 5:46:14 PM (No. 240677)
Libs have the knives out for the author of this article in the comments after it. Seems they do not agree with the statute and read things into it that are not there. Also, didn't Obama fire a whistleblower over the Fast & Furious gun running scandal? Didn't hear any Dems crying about any whistleblower protections at that time.
9 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Sandpiper 11/20/2019 6:04:42 PM (No. 240691)
You need to put on hip-boots to read through this article. The Schiff is deep.
8 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
cor-vet 11/20/2019 6:18:21 PM (No. 240707)
How can there already be threats to the whistleblower when we don't (wink, wink) know who he is, Schiffhead?
10 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Starboard_side 11/20/2019 6:31:01 PM (No. 240729)
From Rep. Bull Schiff's tweet:
Let's be clear: the whistleblower did everything right. They followed all appropriate laws and procedures. And they have every legal right to remain anonymous.
Notice the followed all "appropriate laws", I presume according to him, and "procedures" which they changed to fit the person's statement AFTER THE FACT(of the call) to ensure second-hand testimony would be acceptable.
He claims he does not know who this person is, but no one can question certain things for fear the person might be outed. How would he know if the person was outed when he claims he does not know who it is?
And, please state the statute where this person is protected?
7 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
mathman 11/20/2019 6:47:43 PM (No. 240757)
1. He is not a whistle blower. Such a person has first-hand knowledge of an infraction.
2. He is known to Schiff, despite claims by Schiff to the contrary.
3. We do not live in a country governed by secret informers. The USSR was such a country, and is no more.
4. Lots of people get threatened all the time. In our polarized country, such threats are common. They evened threatened to kill the 8 year old girl who satirized Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
5. The Dems have nothing more than Impeach 45. They are just mad because they live in a Republic, and want to live in a mob rule democracy, where they have unlimited power.
11 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
columba 11/20/2019 7:08:32 PM (No. 240779)
Is not there something one having the right face his accuser?
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Daisymay 11/20/2019 7:17:29 PM (No. 240788)
The Whistleblower (Eric Ciaramella should have thought of that before he decided to be the one to try to take down The President. No doubt Schiff promis him all kinds of things, mostly that nobody would ever know who he is. Well guess what, we ALL know who he is. We also know who that that Pansey, Vindman was the guy who helped him and is no doubt the "second Whistleblower". Both of them are going to suffer, like it or not. You PO millions of the voters who voted for Trump and think there won't be a consequence? Ha! Maybe Vindman can take hide you away on some Military Base for a while, but even there you will be spit upon for being a traitor! So much for being the Big Shot!
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
EQKimball 11/20/2019 8:03:36 PM (No. 240813)
A number civil cases have held the procedural due process under the 14th Amendment incorporates the Confrontation Clause in the 6th Amendment as a basic element of fundamental fairness. No statute trumps the Constitution.
2 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
HotRod 11/20/2019 9:49:17 PM (No. 240854)
''We do not want this committee used, or this testimony used, to try to exact political retribution against the whistleblower.''
However, the alleged whistleblower is permitted to exact political retribution against President Trump, on behalf of democrats! Traitors!
5 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
bighambone 11/20/2019 10:02:14 PM (No. 240860)
He or she is not a valid whistleblower, as under the federal whistleblower laws political policy disputes with an elected President’s foreign policy decisions by his staff do not qualify as federal bureaucratic agency involved fraud, waste, or abuse. The whistleblower laws do not cover the President, or White House Operations, as the President is not a federal employee assigned to one of the federal bureaucratic agencies. The President is the elected constitutional executive and the White House is not a federal bureaucratic agency. If the President and the White House were covered under the Whistleblower laws there would be an Inspector General in the White House to administer the Whistleblower laws and there is not. That’s why the partisan Democrats, probably Adam Schiff and his staff, had to set up their latest scam against the President initiated by having their partisan informant file his or her complaint against the President with the Intelligence Community Inspector General who has no jurisdiction over the President, the President’s policy decisions, or White House Operations. The Democrats did that to try to keep their informant’s identity secret by fraudulently calling him or her a whistleblower. If this matter ever gets to the Senate, you can bet that the Democrat’s informant will be subpoenaed to testify if the Senate holds a trial leading to the possible removal of the President from office. That has to happen as the Republican Senators would be committing individual political suicide if they ever vote to remove the Republican President based upon an anonymous complaint made by a partisan Democrat “Deep State” actor.
.
2 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
DVC 11/20/2019 10:30:53 PM (No. 240869)
Since everything else that Schiff says is a lie, this is very likely a lie, too.
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
seamusm 11/20/2019 10:34:40 PM (No. 240870)
A need the protection of anonymity may be legitimate but an accusation requires investigation and if the accusation proves false there is no protection at all and the whistle blower may rightly be fired forthwith and lose benefits as with a dishonorable discharge.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)