READ: Whistleblower lawyer's letter to White House

Your opinion. The law, however, say something entirely different.

 

The bolded: the statute in no way prohibits a whistleblower from making a complaint about the President's behavior, also vis-a-vis foreign policy.

Better luck to you next time.

 

Whistle blower laws only protect people from getting fired, not their identity.

 

Where does it STIPULATE that a WB must be a witness?

 

Your BLOTUS has a bad reputation for being VINDICTIVE against anyone who dares to tell the truth about him.

The WB has every right to PROTECT himself from your BLOTUS.

 

He has offered to answer Republican questions.

 

Many people confuse the word "traitor" (noun) with "treacherous" (adjective). Treason officially only happens in times of war. Treachery is not bound to war.

First, just to be clear, any attack on the whistleblower at all on the part of Trump -since HE is the cause of the whistleblower's complaint, is logically some form of obstruction, whether or not calling the WB a "traitor" or not is deemed a threat. So, feel free to defend him by falling into the semantics of couching words, but the actual facts, in every possible way, speak against Trump. Were he smart (and he is obviously not), he would just keep his mouth shut, but no, Trump must attack everyone because in his ****ed-up world, he only wins when everyone else loses and btw the pissing-match is only over with when he has pissed on the last object of his ire. This is very much the behavior of mafia bosses, but not of presidents.

Second, treachery is just as ugly as treason.

 

Given that no one knows, apart from Adam Schiff and his staff, who this 'Whistleblower' is then there doesn't seem to be any harm done.

However if the WB goes to court for spying, espionage, or other related crimes regarding the listening in and release of classified information, then he (or she) can certainly be a traitor just as would any other spy. Aldrich Ames, for example, could certainly be called a traitor..

 

If this person is allowed to reveal his sources of information regarding how he gained access and knowledge of classified material then it would go a long way to discovering whether he's the source of the classified leaks or is someone else in the CIA, FBI or White House.

 

Unlimited questions in public and under oath? I can't see Adam Schiff allowing that but it's certainly best if he does.

Why just "Republican" questions? Does that mean he's a Democrat?

 

Do you know who this Whistle Blower is?

 

Were you joking or making an analogy? Neither works. Don't try to be clever You haven't the gift.

 

He made an offer to answer questions in writing from the Republicans on the 3 committees without going through the Dems. So a procedural hurdle that existed in live testimony would be eliminated.

 

So it won't be open. There'll be no cross examination?

If this Whistle Blower has information that could bring down the Presidency of the United States why would they only want to pass notes back and forth?

 

"seem" is not relevant.

What US Code says IS relevant.

Again, rule of law.

And again, the whistleblower's complaint was serious enough for it to pass through all of the correct channels.

As for ascertaining espionage, that is an interesting point. Were evidence to point to this, then I would tend to agree with you. But, that being said, use a little bit of logic, nöööö.... what spy in the world would go to these lengths to out him/herself?

 

Which correct channels were these? Were there others besides Adam Schiff's office?

But the spy is not coming clean and outing him or herself. That's the point.

How did this person gain access to classified government information? Was he working alone or with others? How long has his spying been going on? Has he been working with the Russians or any other foreign governments?

Those are the real questions which must be answered.

 

He has the right to retain his job without retribution against his job.

 

The first amendment is not limitless and there is a far cry of severity between an anonymous user on PF and the president.

 

No.

 

If the Republicans think he has useful information, why don’t they take him up on his offer?

 

To me it reads like this lawyer will give anything to be a blower himself

 

The 6th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

Why so that he can be attacked or physically hurt by a T cultist? There are Trumpians mimicked Trump who called the Col a traitor. if I attributed that to you by accident I am sorry.
The whistle blower will be revealed in due time when it is safe.

 

I'm not certain he's in a position offer anything. The man gained access to classified information, which is a crime. Or are you discussing plea bargaining?

 

Then how can you claim,"Calling him a traitor is a threat in and of itself" when you don't know who "him" is?