Everything the Dems do seems to backfire!
Add another one to the list, and this is a big one!
By law, whistleblowers are protected for their reports for obvious reasons.
But there are exceptions, such as if the complaint is not filed in good faith or if the federal laws are not filed.
And it is starting to look like this so-called whistleblower may be facing problems in both of those areas!
Uh oh!
Here's more, from the LA Times:
Most worrisome in this case, whistleblowers are only protected if their claims are found to be serious and credible, thus falling under the scope of the statute. Although the intelligence community’s inspector general found the Ukraine-gate whistleblower’s complaint to be credible, saying it raised issues of “urgent concern,” it was not immediately turned over to Congress after the Justice Department raised questions about whether it actually fell under the law’s mandate.
Even in cases that clearly fall under a state or federal whistleblower protection law, stories abound of government workers who suffer official retaliation for reporting wrongdoing through proper channels.
Employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, testified before Congress this year about being reassigned, demoted or otherwise punished after exposing serious lapses in the delivery of medical services to patients at VA hospitals. Reports of systematic retaliation against VA whistleblowers stretch back for years — yet nothing seems to change, and VA employees who report misconduct through proper channels do so at their own risk.
In this case, the calls for punishing the messenger are coming straight from the top. In a private meeting with U.S. diplomats last week, a recording of which was obtained by this newspaper, Trump spoke about the whistleblower and his or her sources. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”
Even if execution is taken off the table, whistleblowers can be subjected to many subtle forms of retaliation — from demotion or discharge (cast, of course, as being for some cause other than whistleblowing), to being blacklisted from future good assignments or losing key security clearances.
READ MORE: Here's Why President Trump Calls Him Liddle' Adam Schiff
And here's a portion from a wonderfully-well-written article over at The Federalist:
An anti-Trump whistleblower at the center of ongoing Democratic efforts to impeach President Donald Trump coordinated with Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his Democratic staff prior to filing his whistleblower complaint, The New York Times reported on Wednesday afternoon. The bombshell report that the whistleblower and his Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) colleagues actively worked exclusively with congressional Democrats before filing the complaint raises serious questions about whether the complainant followed federal laws providing whistleblower protections for employees within the U.S. intelligence community.
“Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer,” The New York Times reported. “Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump.”
The New York Times noted that the anti-Trump complainant only notified the committee’s Democrats of his allegations.
“The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy,” The New York Times wrote.
Under federal law, whistleblowers within the intelligence community are required to report any allegations of wrongdoing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in order to receive statutory whistleblower protections for their disclosures. The law does not provide any protections to employees or contractors who bypass the process required by law and go directly to Congress, nor does it provide any avenue to disclose classified information to Congress without first going through the ICIG. If the complainant or a colleague leaked classified information to Schiff or his committee, those individuals could be subject to criminal liability for illegal and unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
“The employee may contact the intelligence committees directly [after filing a complaint with the inspector general] if the employee…before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the intelligence committees directly…and obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices,” the federal whistleblower law, known as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, states.
The full anti-Trump complaint, which was declassified by the president and released on September 25, included no first-hand evidence of wrongdoing by the president. Instead, it offered a litany of second-hand allegations, gossip, and hearsay, much of which was shown to be false when compared to the actual transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky.
As The Federalist first reported last week, the ICIG changed its internal rules and guidance regarding whistleblower complaints to eliminate a requirement that the complaints contain first-hand information. The ICIG confirmed that reporting on Monday when it admitted it had altered its forms and procedures after the anti-Trump complaint was filed with the ICIG.
Top lawmakers in both the Senate and House sent letters to the ICIG earlier this week demanding to know precisely when the first-hand information required was discarded. Under the whistleblower law, the ICIG has near-total authority to determine how whistleblower evidence is weighed and ultimately whether complaints are considered credible.
The ICIG admitted in a September 13 letter to Congress that he never reviewed the transcript of the July 25 call before determining that the anti-Trump complaint “appear[ed] credible.”
“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” ICIG Michael Atkinson wrote.
Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient and did not qualify under the law as an “urgent concern” that needed to be provided to the relevant congressional oversight committees.
The communication between the whistleblower and House Democrats prior to the complaint’s filing also raises questions about whether Schiff and his committee staff coordinated with the ICIG regarding the watchdog’s whistleblower forms and guidance stating that first-hand information is required in order for the agency to properly investigate “urgent concern” complaints.
If you're with the "white hats"...get yourself a black hat!
Get it?
After being sold out for 3 months, they're finally back in stock!
Only while they last.
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!