Presumably, everyone inside the beltway — media, bureaucrat and politician — thinks they know the identity of the Ukraine phone call whistleblower. Now we know what they think they know.
RCI: The Beltway’s ‘Whistleblower’ Furor Obsesses Over One Name
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Apparently the Whistle Blower Protection Act is only for certain people. OK.
Absent, with the exception of a single paragraph concerning Vindman’s testimony yesterday that only discusses the attempts by the GOP to, illegally, unmask the whistle blower, is any reference to the corroboration by people with first hand knowledge of the concerns voiced in the whistle blower’s complaint. Again, attack the process, and possibly, break the law, and ignore the important facts. But what about, but what about, but what about….
Next, the GOP will smear Lassie because she didn’t assist in Normandy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “Apparently the Whistle Blower Protection Act is only for certain people. OK.”
The Whistle Blower Protection Act doesn’t guarantee or even protect anonymity. This is another case of asserting as fact something which a little research might have shown you is false.
LikeLike
According to the right wing Washington Examiner . . .
“The answer to the first question is yes, the whistleblower does have a right to anonymity.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/the-case-for-identifying-the-whistleblower
Here is the relevant portion of the the Inspector General Act which says that agency watchdogs “shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the inspector general determines such disclosure is unavoidable.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “unless the inspector general determines such disclosure is unavoidable.”
In other words, as I stated, the Act does not guarantee or protect anonymity.
LikeLike
If anonymity is not part of the law, why was it written? Not only to protect the whistle blower from retribution, which Trump is already calling for. But also to protect his identity and that of his family because not everyone is as level headed as you concerning those standing up to the president.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“If anonymity is not part of the law, why was it written?”
The simple fact is that anonymity is not part of the law, as you asserted.
LikeLike
I stand corrected.
However, I go back the the safety of the whistle blower and his family from those not as level headed as you are in defending Trump. The law protects the individual from employment retribution. Is it not in the best interest of all involved if the whistle blower doesn’t meet with an untimely end because some idiot likes sending pipe bombs to those who disagree or criticize the President? Or are you in agreement that the whistle blower deserves to be treated the same a war time traitor?
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “However, I go back the the safety of the whistle blower and his family from those not as level headed as you are in defending Trump.”
Had you read the article I posted you would know that the person many suspect is the whistle blower has law enforcement resources protecting him and his family at present. Is that not enough?
LikeLike
It is very characteristic of Trump and his enablers that the law means absolutely nothing to them.
They did not follow the law when they failed to forward the formal complaint to Congress as required and now they are disclosing the identity of a Whistle blower who is legally entitled to anonymity.
Since they cannot refute the substance of the complaint they now want to shoot the messenger. Literally. The chief law enforcement officer of the United States – one Donald J. Trump – has called the Whistle blower’s action treason and directly alluded to the capital punishment historically applied to traitors.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “They did not follow the law when they failed to forward the formal complaint to Congress as required”
The DOJ/OLC determined the complaint did not need to be forwarded to Congress. The administration followed the law.
RE: “a Whistle blower who is legally entitled to anonymity.”
False. The whistle blower is not legally entitled to anonymity.
LikeLike
There is NOTHING in the Whistle blower law that calls for the DOJ/OLC to make any such ruling. You are merely citing the phony excuse offered for breaking the law.
As for anonymity I will agree that even though the Inspector General is required to not disclose the name without a compelling reason, the law does not extend to others who may learn of it. So, he IS entitled to anonymity but not without limits. If some jackass accusing the Whistle blower of treason were to tweet his name to umpteen million followers, it would not be a crime merely an impeachable offense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The DOJ/OLC determined the complaint did not need to be forwarded to Congress. The administration followed the law.”
Hmmm, interesting concept. The WH can write its own rules but the House cannot. The DOJ, under one William Barr, is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Trump Presidency. I’m sure it never entered your mind that the Barr-led DOJ did not forward the complaint because it was 1) damning and 2) accurate. And therefore, Mr. Trump needed to be protected from his own words and actions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You can read the OLC’s determination memo here:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/olc-issues-opinion-about-urgent-concern-determination-whistleblower-complaint-dni
The laws it complied with were on the books before the current WH took office, so there doesn’t seem to be much basis for your assertion of conspiracy theory.
LikeLike
Wow, how off base are you? I am talking about Barr, you bring up the law. Lawyers bend and interpret laws all of the time. If they found a way to ignore the requirement to forward the complaint, then they found an interpretation that backs their decision. I stand by the idea that Barr is not really an Attorney General, just another Trump lawyer, except now he is on the taxpayer’s dime. Trump finally got his yes man @ DOJ. OT deny such is to be blind to what has been going on since Barr moved in.
LikeLike
RE: “You are merely citing the phony excuse offered for breaking the law.”
As I recall, the DOJ/OLC’s determination was based on considerations beyond the Whistle Blower Protection Act. Citing the Act is therefore a red herring.
RE: “I will agree that even though the Inspector General is required to not disclose the name without a compelling reason, the law does not extend to others who may learn of it. So, he IS entitled to anonymity but not without limits.”
Another red herring. Should the whistle blower be required to testify, his identity would necessarily become public under the doctrine that an accused is entitled to face accuser.
LikeLike
” . . .an accused is entitled to face accuser.”
There is no such doctrine in the law. There have been many cases where the identity of the witness has been kept from the accused.
Furthermore, there is ZERO reason for the Whistle blower to testify. As you have pointed out when it suited you – he has no first hand knowledge and therefor anything he might say would be hearsay. He provided information – not evidence. The evidence came later.
The DOJ intervention to block the REQUIRED transmission of the complaint to Congress was outside the law and its reasoning was completely phony. It was, in fact, part of the cover-up of the President’s criminal conduct.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “There is no such doctrine in the law.”
I’m not surprised you would say such a thing. You are compulsive/obsessive when it comes to denying common truths. In the disorder of your thinking, even the 6th Amendment of our Constitution no longer exists.
LikeLike
You can confront your accuser WITHOUT them revealing their identity. This is done frequently when there is a real risk to the safety of the witness from, say, Russian gangsters. Testimony is given from behind a curtain and often with voice disguising electronics.
https://www.sa-hr.org/single-post/2017/07/09/Anonymising-witness-identity-and-the-right-of-fair-trial
Of course, this is a pointless discussion because there is no need for the Whistleblower to present hearsay when there is now compelling direct evidence from people who have direct knowledge of the crimes committed.
An accusation of “denying common truths” coming from someone with your amazing history of goofy counterfactual obtuseness is a real hoot displaying a remarkable lack of self awareness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Blah, blah, blah. The point is that the legal doctrine I cited is real, despite your denials.
LikeLike
I acknowledge that I overstated the doctrine of the law. Yes, you have a right to face your accuser but you do not have an absolute right to their know their identity. In this case there is no legitimate reason for the name of the Whistleblower to be made known – he is not providing evidence. That came later.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Yes, you have a right to face your accuser but you do not have an absolute right to their know their identity.”
No one said such an absolute right exists. The point, again, is that the whistle blower has no absolute right to anonymity.
LikeLike