world

Facebook deleting name of potential whistleblower

24 Comments
By BARBARA ORTUTAY

Facebook says it is deleting the name of the person who has been identified in conservative circles as the whistleblower who triggered a congressional impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump's actions.

The company said Friday that mention of the potential whistleblower's name violates Facebook's "coordinating harm policy," which prohibits material that could identify a "witness, informant, or activist."

Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower's name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.

On Twitter, though, the alleged whistleblower's name was circulating widely on Friday. The company does not have a policy against identifying whistleblowers by name and is not removing the posts.

Some of the stories identifying the person came from the conservative news site Breitbart, which Facebook counts as one of its news partners in a newly launched news section on its app. However, the company said it was also removing identifying posts on the whistleblower from Breitbart.

In a statement, Twitter said it prohibits the sharing of "personally identifiable information about any individual, including the alleged whistleblower." But the company's policy on such information does not consider a person's name to be private information, a category that does include details such as a person's address, contact information or medical records.

U.S. whistleblower laws exist to protect the identity and careers of people who bring forward accusations of wrongdoing by government officials. Lawmakers in both parties have historically backed those protections.

The Associated Press typically does not reveal the identity of whistleblowers.

So far, President Donald Trump has avoided identifying the whistleblower by name. Exposing whistleblowers can be dicey, even for a president. For one thing, doing so could be a violation of federal law.

While there's little chance Trump could face charges, revealing the name could give Democrats more impeachment fodder. It could also prompt a backlash among some Senate Republicans who have long defended whistleblowers.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

Trying to swat every fly.

Good luck.

The people will win and the truth will be known.

No more secrecy and coverups.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Pffft, we all know who it is, and he ain't a whistleblower, he's an Obama holdover and leaker.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Who?  Trump?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Facebook has no conscience. Dangerous to our nation as a monopoly.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

these whistleblowers and dems claim they are keeping us safe or some other waste of time noise but interesting how the scurry and hide when called out. They have no other intention but to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. Steve Bannon called it the "managed decline" of America.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

here is CNN:

"It is true no law explicitly prevents anyone, other than the IG and their staff, from revealing the name of a whistleblower. But that doesn't mean it's legal."

What kind of word salad is that. Because it isnt illegal, doesnt mean its legal? this is a yes or no question.

If the law doesnt not prevent something, it is LEGAL by default.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

show me a law that says it is illegal to release his name. Remember when Schiff lied in Congress about the transcript and it was "ok*. Heres one:

"Members of Congress are absolutely immune for anything they say on the floor of Congress," Litt said. "If Rand Paul wants to stand up and disclose the name, even if it's otherwise unlawful, he's going to be protected."

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

You can read all about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

2 ( +2 / -0 )

read that. says nothing about it being illegal.

I googled NPR, Reuters and CNN. All say nothing prevents it, especially if it is done in Congress,

Your guy doesnt work there anymore at NSC, so he cant claim workplace discrimination or harassment.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

read that. says nothing about it being illegal.

Yes it does:

Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation for disclosure of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

Providing their name exposes them to retaliation.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

He can delete it all he wants, everyone in Washington knows his name and who he is, what he does and who, he worked for. There are other platforms where you can print his name and it’s going to come out sooner or later anyway, especially when he’s called out as a witness for cross examination.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

not until they prove they have been retaliated against, in an internal review of the IG they did the whistleblowing to. might want to read some more on this,.

Simply releasing the name is not retaliation. And again if it is released in Congress, it is fully protected.

Amazing that it is legal to even lie in Congress. Adam Schiff taught us that.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

not until they prove they have been retaliated against

Exposing their name IS retaliation.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Its fine, we will release it when and if we feel like it. As its not illegal.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Facebook has no conscience. Dangerous to our nation as a monopoly.

No, its called freedom of speech. Cant have it both ways.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Lawmakers in both parties have historically backed those protections.

Really? Remind me how they protected Snowden, Assange, or Manning.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The Leftist press have published many pieces of confidential information about the government over the years including military secrets going back to the early 1970’s. If this was a conservative threatening at Democrat president his name would be a daily lead in the media.

The problem with the “whistleblower” is that he himself may be involved in coordinated criminal activity aimed at overthrowing a duly elected president. He and his coup supporting attorney have been directly colluding with Schiff.

If you intention is to oust the president of the US you should not be able to do so from the shadows. Democracy dies in darkness.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Everyone in DC knows who the “whistleblower” is. Everyone on Twitter knows who he is. Everyone in every news room in America know who he is.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No, its called freedom of speech. Cant have it both ways.

How is censoring Facebook posts considered freedom of speech?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Everyone in DC knows who the “whistleblower” is. Everyone on Twitter knows who he is. Everyone in every news room in America know who he is.

Then please, enlighten all of us with the name if you think that is somehow important or relevant.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yep and the whistleblower wasn’t on the call. 

Actually, yes, he was, but don't let actual facts get into the way of your alternative narrative.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Don't worry, Trump fans. I fully expect yet another "investigation into the investigation" when this is over. It's SOP for the GOP now that they have such a corrupt administration and Congress That would make three losses in a row.

Until then, the rest of us will be focusing on the con man President and his corrupt buddies. Enjoy your smear campaigns and conspiracy theories.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Actually, yes, he was, but don't let actual facts get into the way of your alternative narrative.

I think the OP was referring to the original whistleblower, not the second whistleblower.

It really doesn't matter though because if it is the CIA operative, he has security clearances that allow him access to confidential information, which defeats the Trumpophile argument that someone leakedcclassiduef information to the whistleblower.

The initial whistleblower could be the most biased individual in the history of bias or individuals and itbwouldnt matter because his information was corroborated by so many of Donny's own people.

It's quite telling that Trumpophiles are more concerned with who the whistleblower is than with what Donny did. It's the equivalent of shouting, "LOOK

A SQUIRREL!"

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Its fine, we will release it when and if we feel like it. As its not illegal.

Go on then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites