I understand that you don't understand criminal vs civil law. And I also understand that you don't understand application of law. But that is because you are very stupid.
So, there’s a legal limit as to the timing of when the whistleblower’s anonymity must be protected, and later lost? Is that it? And, for those scoring at home, let’s be clear in agreeing that there is no federal law which requires the whistleblower’s identity to be protected in anonymity. We agree on that, right? Because I asked you to cite one and you haven’t. And you haven’t because you can’t. And you can’t because no such law exists, as you and Float goofily claimed, each in complete ignorance. It’s curious to me how all of these Dems - most particularly Schiff - all claim to not know the identity of the whistleblowers name. Right up until someone says his name. Then everyone knows it. How do you two wunderkinds explain this? You two mouth-breathing dullards go huddle up and get back to me.
Chapter 5 is not criminal. You aren't party to it, so are free to do whatever. You do face potential civil in libel, but the odds of that going anywhere are nil. Whomever did leak the whistlerblower's info, if in government would be party, and subject to potential suit (it's suing the government, which itself of tricky) if harm could be shown (which is also tricky here). If the information was just discovered naturally by non/government types (really good sleuths or guesses) they aren't party, and are protected. But simply because you are protected, and lots and lots of people are protected, does not mean everyone is protected. Not that either ultimately will matter.
There is not a single federal law the requires the anonymity of any whistleblower. Ever. I can’t say it more plainly than this.
I said they were legally protected. That's it. you invented a goal post of anonymity probably from some moron blog you read. They are protected by the whistleblower protection act. you can read about the wpa and wpea here: https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Inspector-General/Whistleblower-Protection-Act-WPA
5 U.S. Code § 2302. Prohibited personnel practices It absolutely can be based on the bolded (personnel action and (xii)). I'm not sure if it is in this case, because I don't know this particular case. But it absolutely can be--consider an intelligence agency officer whose anonymity is their job. If they are "doxed" they can't do their job, and thus, have a significant change in duty. That doesn't mean YOU can't say something that someone else has already said. But the first person that said it could be in violation.
No whistleblower can be retaliated against, solely for whistleblowing. How you’re confusing that to mean a whistleblower not only has any reasonable expectation of anonymity, or that anyone has any duty to ever provide it, is mind-bogglingly dumb.
How do you interpret the 1978 Inspector General Act when it says: (B) Anonymity.--The Inspector General of each agency shall not disclose the identity of any individual making a report under this paragraph without the consent of the individual unless the Inspector General determines that such a disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.''.
Disclosing the identity of someone is potentially (arguably) retaliation. If an argument can be brought before the court that shows such, and the court deems it a valid argument, there ya go. Because this is not criminal law. The state is not bringing the charge, the individual is, and the individual gets to define the charge. Your argument seems to be "there isn't a precedent," which might not even be true. Or that "the courts wouldn't side with..." which might not be true. But there absolutely is a law.
There is no federal law which mandates that a whistleblower has any right to anonymity, or that the government has any responsibility to ensure for it. What you’re arguing here is, essentially, “Well, someone could argue that divulging his name is retaliatory” - but even the possibility of that argument being raised still doesn’t legally require it. At all. No matter if Daniel Webster and John Adams argued the case for him. The Dems didn’t want him known because they don’t want him known - could be a million reasons why (let everyone make their best assumption) - but acting like it is some legal standard that they’re upholding, when no such standard exists, is just stupidly dishonest. And now you’re here, making the same repetitive points and cyclical arguments that you made several posts ago, which only ape their mistake, and are no more valid now than they were last week, or will ever be.
Yes, if the argument is raised and the court dictates the argument is valid (and I have given you a scenario in which it would be valid), then the courts have determined that that code requires anonymity. Your argument is "it isn't," and that isn't true, because the answer is actually "it is unknown." You are making a definitive argument when there is no definitive answer. The law allows that anonymity must be protected. Allows for it. And since it has not been definitely determined, that allowance exists, now and until it is determined.
Why I bother, I'll never know... I'm assuming I need to daisy chain this code back to show that all complaints are supposed to be held entirely under the authority of the Inspector General so as to show if only they have it, and they can't release it... then nobody is therefore able?
You’re seeing this completely and exactly backwards, Float. We do not live in a world - yet, thank God - where everything and every action is illegal, except that which is expressly permissible by law. There is no federal law which requires the anonymity of a whistleblower. Unless something is expressly prohibitive, it is legal. I can say Eric Ciaramella’s name. You can. Trump can. Schiff can. Hillary can. Comey can. Bernie can. Emmanuel Macron can. Schiff didn’t prefer it be said, and simply invented some goofily fictitious requirement as a way to keep it from being mentioned. Period. Hard stop. Do you see this easily plain reality? Even if you don’t like it, and find the idea of your admitting any personal error as being repugnant? If you need more proof, watch this: Eric Ciaramella Eric Ciaramella Eric Ciaramella Eric Ciaramella Here’s a picture of Eric Ciaramella with some friends & acquaintances: See? Nobody cares, and nothing is happening. Because it’s not illegal.
Right, and if the report can only go through the inspector general... and the Inspector General has the complaint. And they can't release the information.... who is it that you think also has the complaint, that is legally allowed to have it?
Illegal and criminal aren't the same thing. Let me try again. If you and I have a nondisclosure agreement, because of contract law, and I disclose something, have I violated the law? Yes, I've violated contract law, and you can come after me in court. However, if someone that isn't party to that NDA repeats what I said, THEY ARE NOT IN VIOLATION. ------------------------------------------------------- In this instance, you are the other person that is not in violation. You can repeat all you want about the NDA. But that doesn't mean that the person that was party to the NDA didn't break contract law.
The United States Congress, Float. The United States Congress has slightly different roles and responsibilities than the Inspector General. Do you think it meaningless that what you quoted clearly defines the responsibility to the Inspector General, alone, Float? And even if this did magically bind the unnamed US Congress (which is laughable that the law could bind the lawmakers....but this is your world)...you think that the Inspector General could report it to Congress, but not feel like this made it impossible to protect...by literally placing it on the largest and most important of all public records? Is this your line of thinking? Schiff didn’t want anyone knowing who it was, because that raises a host of questions that neither are going to enjoy, and so he invented this whole “you can’t say his name” silliness as a flailing and stupid means to prevent it, and which you’ve not only fallen for but are left here to try and defend what is utterly indefensible.
Did you see the part where I said that any member of Congress could also say his name? As could POTUS? As could the AG?
The inspector general can report to congress on an issue without naming the person that made the report. Yes. That is absolutely possible. Which is why the law allows for the potential removing anonymity if necessary. But your argument here appears to be that it is impossible for the inspector general to report to Congress without mentioning someone's name. That is your assertion, yes?
