Posted on 11/07/2019 9:01:49 AM PST by edwinland
n recent days, President Trump and his allies have amplified their calls for the whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry to be identified, presenting the question of whether it would be a crime for the president to unmask the anonymous whistleblower.
According to four former top federal government officials who worked in intelligence and national security, the answer is no.
"If Trump thinks he knows the name, he can come out and say it, and he's probably as protected as anyone is," said Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama.
Litt and several other legal experts who talked to NPR said Trump uttering or tweeting the name could in theory trigger an article of impeachment for retaliating against a whistleblower, but it would not run afoul of any federal criminal statutes.
Similarly, if a news outlet, member of Congress or member of the public outed the whistleblower, legal experts said, no criminal law would be violated.
"There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal law," said Dan Meyer, a lawyer and the former executive director of the intelligence community whistleblower program. "Congress has never provided that protection."
It’s a trap.
Trump can do it. Its free speech. Whistleblower laws only protect against retaliation and firing not against naming the person making a complaint.
Reads like one.
The dems already did it when they released the latest transcript.
Trump should have just fired him, like Obama did during Fast and Furious..or just like CBS just did with the whistleblower who gave Project Veritas the Epstein tape..ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh my bad, its only a doggy no no to fire a whistleblower when that person is trashing a Republican I see
Other articles today say that Schiff failed to redact the name in a recent transcript he released. So, the dud is already “outed”. Next: Pin Schiff down under oath and expose his plot. Does not involve outing the “whistleblower”, unless we can get to Schiff hauled away in chains to the gallows. He’ll deserve lots of company.
It would be an interesting situation if Trump had instantly fired the guy.
“But you can’t retaliate against a whistleblower!!”
“Whistleblower? Was that him? I had no idea! You people should have told me!! I certainly wasn’t retaliating! Not me! I didn’t even know he was the guy!”
My B.S. detector is going off like crazy today, and I'm now convinced that there is NO whistleblower at all. Schiff has concocted this idiocy out of thin air just to fabricate an impeachment inquiry, and his "whistleblower" is actually a collection of individuals who are all privy to the President's communications (either first-hand or second-hand) and who are trying to criminalize normal White House activities that are perfectly legal.
Just look at the testimony that Schiff HAS leaked. It's filled with emotional ventilating from a bunch of bureaucratic misfits who can't identify a single thing the President has done wrong, but who somehow "feel" like something was wrong with his conversation with the Ukrainian president.
Does “moot point” mean anything in this conversation? Adam Schiff released the unredacted name from the transcript of “closed door” testimony.
It’s out there, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle now.
NPR preparing Liberals for the fact that the name is about to be formally out there.
In fact, I'm of the mind that the guy's name has just been dangled out there as bait to see how the President and his people will react to it.
Think hard about this, folks. Where did you first read this guy's name? And was THAT a reliable source, or just a diversion posted on the internet like an Abraham Lincoln meme with an iPhone?
Its Ciaramilla!
Correction: Schiff released AN unredacted name from the transcript of the closed-door testimony.
The only people who MIGHT know who this "whistleblower" is are Schiff, his staff, and this lawyer Mark Zaid who claims to represent the whistleblower.
Zaid, in fact, can (and should) be compelled to appear for sworn testimony in any matter related to the whistleblower. He can assert a lawyer-client privilege and refuse to testify, but in doing so I'm certain he'd have to identify the party he represents who is asserting this lawyer-client privilege.
The whistleblower “law” doesn’t apply to the President.
He’s not a civil service employee. He’s the elected Executive.
Somebody doesn’t like what he did they can go tell the Judiciary Committee of either house.
“and his “whistleblower” is actually a collection of individuals who are all privy to the President’s communications (either first-hand or second-hand) and who are trying to criminalize normal White House activities that are perfectly legal”
That’s a real possibility, and fits with Schiff’s Gonzo journalism “parodies” that he’s read to Congress.
Government by Hunter Thompson.
They changed the whistleblower law right before the complaint was made. It’s all a coup attempt.
Ciaramilla, or Charlie, is in the upcoming VISA drop. He’s been under investigation since before whistleblower status. He is now in very deep. Trump; Where’s the whistleblower? Lolol!
Video clip at link:
https://twitter.com/BlazeTV/status/1192485069316902916
BlazeTV
Verified account
@BlazeTV
.@DonaldJTrumpJr confronts “The View” about ABC’s Epstein cover-up — on ABC.
“ABC is right now chasing down a whistleblower about all of the Epstein stuff because those stories were killed. So, if we’re going to have the conversation about the outrage about whistleblowers...”
“Whistleblowers” are only protected from firing or retribution. There is no requirement in any law (at present) to keep their identities secret.
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.