Yes on all 3 counts. But your last statement is pure speculation. The original question was whether the whistle blower rules/protections applied equally to .gov employees and contractors. The answer is not completely clear, but generally accepted as Yes. Snowden used a 'no' answer to justify his actions. I don't necessarily disagree with his reasoning, but I'm happy he took his course of action. It is still not correct to say he had no other option.
Allow me to clarify: he took the only course available that would expose the problem.
He could also have done what everyone else in his position had done: collect his paycheck and keep his mouth shut. Yes, that's an option, but not one his conscience could abide.
Leaving aside the employee/contractor question, the current whistle blower faced all the same challenges you listed above. Yet he took a different course of action. He faced the same 3 challenges that you listed above. I think you can say he is facing a lot of challenges, but the fact that we are all here discussing it pretty much means that he wasn't (effectively) silenced. As to whether or not the crimes will continue - we have yet to see. Also, I'd say both Snowden and the current WB di the right thing, and I'd call them both patriots.
There's no comparison. Trump's whistleblower had a majority in the House looking for anythingâanything at allâto throw at Trump. He knew he'd get a friendly reception and get offered what protection they could deliver. Snowden had no such allies.
Yes, they're both patriots and deserve our thanks, but the risks Snowden took and the consequences he faces are far worse.
Trump's "whistleblower" will be yet another failed attempt by the Dems to skewer Trump. This so-called whistle-blower is a gross fraud in itself, being lapped up by culpable and colluding senior officials of an opposition party that is all-in on trying anything, anything at all, to take out Trump. That this person is a fraud, is obvious to those who have been provided all the facts. That would be those who do NOT watch MSDNC, CNN, & other blatantly biased sources. They will fail. Again. And in doing so, will set the bar for malicious prosecutions once again so low that future political and law courses will study the damage their actions have done to society - and the political process. Not to mention the precedent they have set that will no doubt be used against them. Dems have not yet met a rake they don't like ... stepping on. The idiot party. Truly. Don't Dem voters ever get tired of getting sold yet another pack of lies and false hopes by the fraudulent media malpracticers? Asking for a friend.
As for Snowden, he deserves nothing less than a short rope and a long drop. Only in this country are we willing to allow such wanton destruction of national secrets and call it "whistleblowing". Had Snowden done this while working on behalf of a less democratic nation, say, oh, China, he would have been seized and disappeared long ago. The only thing keeping him above ground now is his high profile and name recognition. He's already worn out his welcome elsewhere on this planet, and has apparently voiced the idea that he'd like to come home and face the consequences.
Killing this treasonous shitstain now would be of questionable value. It might light aflame again the news cycle of damaging stories and give the rabble something more to rabble-on about. It would also give kooks like Bernie Three Sheds more ammo to spew in his delusional quest to be relevant.
About the only good that could come of killing Snowden now would be to serve as a warning to others what fate awaits them. Of course... this country was not the only one harmed by Snowden's treasonous revelations. Another country, with sufficient interest, or willingness, to do the work that needs to be done on the very unofficial behest of .... well, there you go. Plausible deniability.
But wtf do I, a stupid deplorable from flyover country know.
It's voters and commentators like blue checkmark Kyle here, who are setting the tone for the American future. God help us.
Wikipedia: "Kyle Edward Kulinski is an American political commentator, and the co-founder of Justice Democrats. He is the host and producer of The Kyle Kulinski Show on his channel Secular Talk, an affiliate of The Young Turks network. He is a social democrat, and a registered Democrat in New York state. "
Yes on all 3 counts. But your last statement is pure speculation. The original question was whether the whistle blower rules/protections applied equally to .gov employees and contractors. The answer is not completely clear, but generally accepted as Yes. Snowden used a 'no' answer to justify his actions. I don't necessarily disagree with his reasoning, but I'm happy he took his course of action. It is still not correct to say he had no other option.
Allow me to clarify: he took the only course available that would expose the problem.
He could also have done what everyone else in his position had done: collect his paycheck and keep his mouth shut. Yes, that's an option, but not one his conscience could abide.
Leaving aside the employee/contractor question, the current whistle blower faced all the same challenges you listed above. Yet he took a different course of action. He faced the same 3 challenges that you listed above. I think you can say he is facing a lot of challenges, but the fact that we are all here discussing it pretty much means that he wasn't (effectively) silenced. As to whether or not the crimes will continue - we have yet to see. Also, I'd say both Snowden and the current WB di the right thing, and I'd call them both patriots.
There's no comparison. Trump's whistleblower had a majority in the House looking for anythingâanything at allâto throw at Trump. He knew he'd get a friendly reception and get offered what protection they could deliver. Snowden had no such allies.
Yes, they're both patriots and deserve our thanks, but the risks Snowden took and the consequences he faces are far worse.
So yes there is a little ambiguity. But it's also clear that he had options. I can understand his reluctance to use them, and I can see the reasoning he came up with for his actions. But it strains credibility to say that protections simply don't cover contractors, or that he had no other options.
The law should protect me, and maybe it does, but I know that the administration in power and its current rivals for power will use every tool at their disposal to crush me like a bug. If I go thru legal channels here's what I can expect:
1. I'm reporting a crime to the people who committed it or the people who funded and authorized it. My complaint will never reach the ears of anyone inclined to stop it.
2. Those people will retaliate...harshly. At very least, assuming they stick to the letter of the law, the NSA will find a pretext to cancel the contract with the company I work for and I'll be out of a job, but still forbidden to disclose what was happening...and would continue to happen.
3. Let's say I decide to fight that retaliation under the whistleblower statute. The evidence I need for my defense is classified and I won't be given access to it. If I have the resources to appeal my case all the way to the Supreme Court I might eventually prevail, but the people responsible will suffer no consequences at all.
Options? Yeah, he had options, but all but the one he chose would silence him and the crimes he exposed would continue. He did the right thing.
Yes on all 3 counts. But your last statement is pure speculation. The original question was whether the whistle blower rules/protections applied equally to .gov employees and contractors. The answer is not completely clear, but generally accepted as Yes. Snowden used a 'no' answer to justify his actions. I don't necessarily disagree with his reasoning, but I'm happy he took his course of action. It is still not correct to say he had no other option.
Leaving aside the employee/contractor question, the current whistle blower faced all the same challenges you listed above. Yet he took a different course of action. He faced the same 3 challenges that you listed above. I think you can say he is facing a lot of challenges, but the fact that we are all here discussing it pretty much means that he wasn't (effectively) silenced. As to whether or not the crimes will continue - we have yet to see. Also, I'd say both Snowden and the current WB di the right thing, and I'd call them both patriots.
Todd kept pressing him to admit to the quid pro quo, Rand quickly said 'possibly' then immediately went into Joe and Hunter Biden as having done 'equally' wrong. They did not. There is no 'there' there. Requesting a corrupt prosecutor be removed is NOT the same as asking for investigation into a particular individual, one that happens to be a potential presidential candidate. He even brought up Hillary Clinton 'conspiracies.' False equivalency, squirrel pointing deflection and endangering a whistleblower is the Republican M.O. these days. I'm ready for some mustard to go with these pretzels.
He's right except where he ignores the clear evidence that it was all about getting dirt on Biden/Democrats and he used his personal attorney to work the deal, clearly not a gov't negotiation.
So yes there is a little ambiguity. But it's also clear that he had options. I can understand his reluctance to use them, and I can see the reasoning he came up with for his actions. But it strains credibility to say that protections simply don't cover contractors, or that he had no other options.
The law should protect me, and maybe it does, but I know that the administration in power and its current rivals for power will use every tool at their disposal to crush me like a bug. If I go thru legal channels here's what I can expect:
1. I'm reporting a crime to the people who committed it or the people who funded and authorized it. My complaint will never reach the ears of anyone inclined to stop it.
2. Those people will retaliate...harshly. At very least, assuming they stick to the letter of the law, the NSA will find a pretext to cancel the contract with the company I work for and I'll be out of a job, but still forbidden to disclose what was happening...and would continue to happen.
3. Let's say I decide to fight that retaliation under the whistleblower statute. The evidence I need for my defense is classified and I won't be given access to it. If I have the resources to appeal my case all the way to the Supreme Court I might eventually prevail, but the people responsible will suffer no consequences at all.
Options? Yeah, he had options, but all but the one he chose would silence him and the crimes he exposed would continue. He did the right thing.
"A whistleblower is an employee of a Federal contractor, subcontractor, grantee, or subgrantee or personal services contractor who discloses information that the individual reasonably believes is evidence of: "
Which makes sense because a whole lot of people who get that kind of info are not government employees.
I do think the rest of your statement is probably true though. Which means that whistle blowers take substantial risks regardless of the path they choose.
Not that clear at all. Separate statute governs people doing intelligence work, and the Obama administration was ruthless in prosecuting anyone who leaked anything.
FTA:
The Pinocchio Test
We told you it was complicated. Based on Meyerâs interpretation â and he should know â Snowden is incorrect that contractors were specifically exempted under PPD19, since at least Section B would seem to apply. But Section A â which protects against retaliation â does not appear to cover contractors. Drakeâs experience is certainly a cautionary tale for any would-be whistleblower in the intelligence realm.
In the end, we are going to award Snowden a single Pinocchio, but itâs more like ½. He cannot quite make the blanket claim that there are no protections for contractors, but he may have been correct in believing that there appear to be no clear protections, especially from retaliation.
So yes there is a little ambiguity. But it's also clear that he had options. I can understand his reluctance to use them, and I can see the reasoning he came up with for his actions. But it strains credibility to say that protections simply don't cover contractors, or that he had no other options.
"A whistleblower is an employee of a Federal contractor, subcontractor, grantee, or subgrantee or personal services contractor who discloses information that the individual reasonably believes is evidence of: "
Which makes sense because a whole lot of people who get that kind of info are not government employees.
I do think the rest of your statement is probably true though. Which means that whistle blowers take substantial risks regardless of the path they choose.
Not that clear at all. Separate statute governs people doing intelligence work, and the Obama administration was ruthless in prosecuting anyone who leaked anything.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 7, 2019 - 12:23pm
kurtster wrote:
Except that there is no provision for anonymity in the whistle blower regulations. Just about everything but. And this whistleblower has no first hand information. And this whistleblower is said to have long standing ties with Biden and Brennan. And the whistleblower's attorney has a long standing history of trying to impeach Trump and even mentioned starting the "coup" against Trump in a tweet dated January 2017. And the whistleblower had contact with Schiff's office prior to finding this attorney.
imo, the whistleblower is a spy and this whole scenario was orchestrated in advance. What blew it all up was Trump releasing the transcript, something that no one anticipated or planned for.
I no longer believe Paul is an ideologue. He's a pragmatist with his own list of priorities that cannot be put in a nice little box and labeled.
You state that the whistleblower has no firsthand information. Right now, the whistleblowerâs complaint triggered the impeachment inquiry, but the House is gathering evidence from those with firsthand knowledge of events. If that remains the case, the House would not be relying on the whistleblower for evidence it is considering. The whistleblower complaint essentially directed the House to those who had evidence. Again, if that remains the case, why do the motivations of the whistleblower matter? As I said earlier, the whistleblower is akin to an anonymous tipster who reports a crime to the police. If the police investigate that tip and collect admissible evidence.that results in arrest and conviction, the identity and motivations of the tipster are irrelevant.
Put another way: if we assume as a hypothetical that the evidence collected by the House convinces the House to impeach and the Senate, after trial, to remove, would you or anyone else be able to say credibly that should not have happened because no one considered the background and motivation of the whistleblower? That the investigation should not have been triggered and, if it had not been triggered, good chance no one would have uncovered this evidence? That would make no sense.
Also: what I have read is the whistleblower is a CIA agent who was detailed to National Security in Obama tenure and continuing into a Trump tenure to advise on Ukraine. And that the whistleblower participated in briefings of Biden when he was VP. So, of course, the whistleblower would have âconnectionsâ to Biden and Brennan. It is misleading to say, as some have, that he worked for Biden without clarifying the nature of that work relationship.
And it has been reported that the whistleblower is or was a registered Democrat. If being a registered Democrat is enough to render the whistleblower incredible, it would also have to follow that anyone who is a registered Republican also is incredible. That would disqualify lots of people in the government. I know Trump incessantly labeled members of Muellerâs team as biased based on their being Democrats, but no reasonable and credible person would make that claim â or believe it.
Edit: You also used your own label for Rand Paul while stating that he cannot be labeled.
Except that there is no provision for anonymity in the whistle blower regulations. Just about everything but. And this whistleblower has no first hand information. And this whistleblower is said to have long standing ties with Biden and Brennan. And the whistleblower's attorney has a long standing history of trying to impeach Trump and even mentioned starting the "coup" against Trump in a tweet dated January 2017. And the whistleblower had contact with Schiff's office prior to finding this attorney.
imo, the whistleblower is a spy and this whole scenario was orchestrated in advance expressly tor the purpose of initiating this latest round of impeachment proceedings. What blew it all up was Trump releasing the transcript, something that no one anticipated or planned for.
I no longer believe Paul is an ideologue. He's a pragmatist with his own list of priorities that cannot be put in a nice little box and labeled.
This only solidifies our point even more. You would have to be out of your mind to attempt to whistleblow through proper legal channels on any government agency unless you had the political backing that would benefit or hurt one party or the other as in this case. Sad but true.
And this further makes my point. People do this at great risk. Regardless of using 'proper' channels or not, it is unlikely that they are doing this for fame or simple political motives. These people think there is a grievous problem and they are willing to take risks to daylight them. Their complaints deserve to be heard, and they deserve anonymity.
edit: and Rand Paul is a fucktard.
You are suggesting I put blame or derision on the whistleblower, quite the contrary. I am assigning blame to a corrupt, partisan government that creates an environment to where whistleblowers are not protected unless they meet the agenda of those in power. However this particular whistleblower I am sure is aware of the severe partisan situation and had to know that they would have powerful backing in Congress to protect them which is not the case in a lot of whistleblowers in the past who felt the full wrath of the government for their good deeds. As far as you telling me that whistle blowers complaints deserve to be heard and with anonymity, yea no kidding. Don't really know what prompted you to think that I would need to hear that because I have never suggested otherwise.
This only solidifies our point even more. You would have to be out of your mind to attempt to whistleblow through proper legal channels on any government agency unless you had the political backing that would benefit or hurt one party or the other as in this case. Sad but true.
And this further makes my point. People do this at great risk. Regardless of using 'proper' channels or not, it is unlikely that they are doing this for fame or simple political motives. These people think there is a grievous problem and they are willing to take risks to daylight them. Their complaints deserve to be heard, and they deserve anonymity.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 7, 2019 - 9:48am
islander wrote:
Lazy8 wrote:
steeler wrote:
Snowden blew his whistle by releasing classified information without authorization. He did not follow a protected whistleblower process. By contrast, this whistleblower did follow such a process. And his complaint was determined by the IC Inspector General to be credible. So all this noise about his or her not being a âlegitimate whistleblowerâ and therefore not entitled to protection is just that â noise.
I know the Snowden case is complex in terms of what he did and why; only making the point that his disclosures were not made via a protected whistleblower process. Some see what he did â at great risk and expense to himself â as heroic. Others see what he did as treasonous or criminal. Snowden is more analogous to Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers, in how he chose to blow his whistle.
Snowden could not avail himself of the existing whistleblower protections because he was not a government employee, he was a contractor. If he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in prison he had no way to get what he knew to the public.
And judging by the reaction of those in Congress (in both parties) to what he released taking the information to Congress would have been a dead end.
The Snowden case is not complex, it's alarmingly simple: powerful people like power and will take extreme measures to protect it, regardless of its source or legality, and they regard people with consciences as traitors.
"A whistleblower is an employee of a Federal contractor, subcontractor, grantee, or subgrantee or personal services contractor who discloses information that the individual reasonably believes is evidence of: "
Which makes sense because a whole lot of people who get that kind of info are not government employees.
I do think the rest of your statement is probably true though. Which means that whistle blowers take substantial risks regardless of the path they choose.
Snowden blew his whistle by releasing classified information without authorization. He did not follow a protected whistleblower process. By contrast, this whistleblower did follow such a process. And his complaint was determined by the IC Inspector General to be credible. So all this noise about his or her not being a “legitimate whistleblower” and therefore not entitled to protection is just that — noise.
I know the Snowden case is complex in terms of what he did and why; only making the point that his disclosures were not made via a protected whistleblower process. Some see what he did — at great risk and expense to himself — as heroic. Others see what he did as treasonous or criminal. Snowden is more analogous to Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers, in how he chose to blow his whistle.
Snowden could not avail himself of the existing whistleblower protections because he was not a government employee, he was a contractor. If he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in prison he had no way to get what he knew to the public.
And judging by the reaction of those in Congress (in both parties) to what he released taking the information to Congress would have been a dead end.
The Snowden case is not complex, it's alarmingly simple: powerful people like power and will take extreme measures to protect it, regardless of its source or legality, and they regard people with consciences as traitors.
I do not necessarily disagree with this or what SirD said. Proclivities summed up well what I was saying about this whistleblower and his or her use of a protected process. I would acknowledge that a protected whistleblower process was not realistically available to Snowden. Therefore, I was not criticizing him for failing to avail himself of such a process.
My point is that there was a protected whistleblower process for the kind of complaint that this whistleblower made and this whistleblower followed that process. To deny him the protections afforded by that process would render the process a fraud not only for him but for whistleblowers who might follow. Rand Paul knows this. As do other Trump GOP supporters in Congress. In his comments at the rally in Kentucky, Paul placed party politics above principle and individual freedom. He is a charlatan.
I don't think you will get any argument from Lazy and as you can see from my post below or me regarding the point about Paul being a charlatan, we are just pointing out that he has a lot of company and they come with different letters behind their names.
Snowden blew his whistle by releasing classified information without authorization. He did not follow a protected whistleblower process. By contrast, this whistleblower did follow such a process. And his complaint was determined by the IC Inspector General to be credible. So all this noise about his or her not being a “legitimate whistleblower” and therefore not entitled to protection is just that — noise.
I know the Snowden case is complex in terms of what he did and why; only making the point that his disclosures were not made via a protected whistleblower process. Some see what he did — at great risk and expense to himself — as heroic. Others see what he did as treasonous or criminal. Snowden is more analogous to Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers, in how he chose to blow his whistle.
Snowden could not avail himself of the existing whistleblower protections because he was not a government employee, he was a contractor. If he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in prison he had no way to get what he knew to the public.
And judging by the reaction of those in Congress (in both parties) to what he released taking the information to Congress would have been a dead end.
The Snowden case is not complex, it's alarmingly simple: powerful people like power and will take extreme measures to protect it, regardless of its source or legality, and they regard people with consciences as traitors.
"A whistleblower is an employee of a Federal contractor, subcontractor, grantee, or subgrantee or personal services contractor who discloses information that the individual reasonably believes is evidence of: " Which makes sense because a whole lot of people who get that kind of info are not government employees.
I do think the rest of your statement is probably true though. Which means that whistle blowers take substantial risks regardless of the path they choose.
This only solidifies our point even more. You would have to be out of your mind to attempt to whistleblow through proper legal channels on any government agency unless you had the political backing that would benefit or hurt one party or the other as in this case. Sad but true.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 7, 2019 - 9:16am
Lazy8 wrote:
steeler wrote:
Snowden blew his whistle by releasing classified information without authorization. He did not follow a protected whistleblower process. By contrast, this whistleblower did follow such a process. And his complaint was determined by the IC Inspector General to be credible. So all this noise about his or her not being a âlegitimate whistleblowerâ and therefore not entitled to protection is just that â noise.
I know the Snowden case is complex in terms of what he did and why; only making the point that his disclosures were not made via a protected whistleblower process. Some see what he did â at great risk and expense to himself â as heroic. Others see what he did as treasonous or criminal. Snowden is more analogous to Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers, in how he chose to blow his whistle.
Snowden could not avail himself of the existing whistleblower protections because he was not a government employee, he was a contractor. If he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in prison he had no way to get what he knew to the public.
And judging by the reaction of those in Congress (in both parties) to what he released taking the information to Congress would have been a dead end.
The Snowden case is not complex, it's alarmingly simple: powerful people like power and will take extreme measures to protect it, regardless of its source or legality, and they regard people with consciences as traitors.
I do not necessarily disagree with this or what SirD said. Proclivities summed up well what I was saying about this whistleblower and his or her use of a protected process. I would acknowledge that a protected whistleblower process was not realistically available to Snowden. Therefore, I was not criticizing him for failing to avail himself of such a process.
My point is that there was a protected whistleblower process for the kind of complaint that this whistleblower made and this whistleblower followed that process. To deny him the protections afforded by that process would render the process a fraud not only for him but for whistleblowers who might follow. Rand Paul knows this. As do other Trump GOP supporters in Congress. In his comments at the rally in Kentucky, Paul placed party politics above principle and individual freedom. He is a charlatan.
Snowden blew his whistle by releasing classified information without authorization. He did not follow a protected whistleblower process. By contrast, this whistleblower did follow such a process. And his complaint was determined by the IC Inspector General to be credible. So all this noise about his or her not being a “legitimate whistleblower” and therefore not entitled to protection is just that — noise.
I know the Snowden case is complex in terms of what he did and why; only making the point that his disclosures were not made via a protected whistleblower process. Some see what he did — at great risk and expense to himself — as heroic. Others see what he did as treasonous or criminal. Snowden is more analogous to Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers, in how he chose to blow his whistle.
Snowden could not avail himself of the existing whistleblower protections because he was not a government employee, he was a contractor. If he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in prison he had no way to get what he knew to the public.
And judging by the reaction of those in Congress (in both parties) to what he released taking the information to Congress would have been a dead end.
The Snowden case is not complex, it's alarmingly simple: powerful people like power and will take extreme measures to protect it, regardless of its source or legality, and they regard people with consciences as traitors.
Of course this only makes Rand Paul even more stunningly hypocritical because he used to be one of those in power that stood up for those that tried to let us in on the governmental abuses to our Constitution and civil liberties. I would say his father would be disappointed but he has been flaking out as well as of late. Does make you wonder what is really going on.
Snowden blew his whistle by releasing classified information without authorization. He did not follow a protected whistleblower process. By contrast, this whistleblower did follow such a process. And his complaint was determined by the IC Inspector General to be credible. So all this noise about his or her not being a âlegitimate whistleblowerâ and therefore not entitled to protection is just that â noise.
I know the Snowden case is complex in terms of what he did and why; only making the point that his disclosures were not made via a protected whistleblower process. Some see what he did â at great risk and expense to himself â as heroic. Others see what he did as treasonous or criminal. Snowden is more analogous to Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers, in how he chose to blow his whistle.
Snowden could not avail himself of the existing whistleblower protections because he was not a government employee, he was a contractor. If he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in prison he had no way to get what he knew to the public.
And judging by the reaction of those in Congress (in both parties) to what he released taking the information to Congress would have been a dead end.
The Snowden case is not complex, it's alarmingly simple: powerful people like power and will take extreme measures to protect it, regardless of its source or legality, and they regard people with consciences as traitors.
"A whistleblower is an employee of a Federal contractor, subcontractor, grantee, or subgrantee or personal services contractor who discloses information that the individual reasonably believes is evidence of: "
Which makes sense because a whole lot of people who get that kind of info are not government employees.
I do think the rest of your statement is probably true though. Which means that whistle blowers take substantial risks regardless of the path they choose.
