Posted on 09/26/2019 11:15:13 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Question: Does Nancy Pelosi's so-called whistle-blower protection law override the constitution, ie, doesn't the accused have the constitutional right to face and question his accuser?
This is a lynching in progress.
Go-around to the whistle-blower sources.
Looks like that is what it will take. And I’m in even if I have to hitchhike...
Or... Everyone could buy a $300 junker car and all show up on the same day and just dump them everywhere and hike out fouling the whole thing up. A very effective non-violent example of opposition.
That would be a point made that CANNOT be ignored... It would get their attention because it could happen again if and when wanted.
LOL....you’ve got your thinking cap on!
The whistle blower isn’t. Hearsay. So not covered. Also the law only applies to people UTA “Under the Authority” of. The President is not part of the Intel Community.
Constitution???
What Constitution?
~~~
We don’t need no stinking constitution.
I agree with whistleblower protections, TBH. The spirit of them is a valid one.
But when the letter of the protections are used as a wildcard in the poker game that is the legislative branch abandoning it’s leglislative functions in favor of bastardizing it’s oversight roles in order to blitz-harass the executive branch endlessly, then no, those protections are not and should not be in-any-way absolute.
Didn’t the federal Gov just reinstate the Death Penalty???
NO.
Next question.
Well, that right applies if they are charged in a court of law. If you just want to lynch someone in the media, I don’t think the victim gets to invoke it.
If you are telling about some event or conversation you are not privy to, I believe that is hearsay, and I don’t believe hearsay is admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding. My suspicion is that this person is not a whistleblower because they are not reporting on a matter they have personal knowledge of. They seem to me like a person who is acting on rumor.
Even if they knew ahead of time how are they going to stop it all? They can’t... they would be helpless against it and it will shut them down to caveman status for weeks. :)
“And you got off easy this time, next time we bring guns with us”... Will be a statement very seriously considered and respected from that point on for the next 50 years at least.
It is important to protect whistleblowers because they have to be in a position to be able to offer evidence that is of value. Just being some a-hole with a suspicion is not the same thing as being a whistleblower. There has to be some sort of relevant evidence that these people have that will make a powerful person very uncomfortable.
Nancy only recognizes the Constitution if it helps a dim, so in this case, the answer must be YES.
The Constitution is only to be trotted out by the dims when they can beat a pubbie over the head with it.
Short answer, “No. This is not a trial. It is an anonymous tip to the cops.”
I don’t think it matters if whistleblower protections override the constitution since however often everyone is repeating it, this person is NOT a whistleblower.
He is a CIA partisan, like Brennan, who hates Trump and is willing to use the Intelligence community and contacts for partisan gain.
It's even better. The whistleblower gets protection by statutory law. If the complaint is not inside the statutory framework, the DNI and ICIG cannot give the protection that is inside the whistleblower framework.
This complaint has already been formally testined by the legal authority, the DOJ, and found to be outside of whistleblower jurisdiction.
Not even the whistelblower is entitled to protection. They will likely litigate that if charged, and who knows what a judge will rule. This would be a good trial case.
Lemme see if I've got this right.
Fox reports that the NYTimes reported that a CIA officer reported, via "whistleblower" complaint, what WH officials had reportedly been told what President Trump was overheard to have said in the phone call.
Is that it?
I think that calling this person a whistleblower is the first mistake rather than pushing back on that.
I agree with you.
Who gave this person who leaks hearsay “whistle-blower” status anyway?
I demand to know who were the 12 so called “concerned” WH people who illegally leaked to this so called “whistle-blower!!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.