The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Facebook deleting name of potential whistleblower
By BARBARA ORTUTAY WASHINGTON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
24 Comments
Login to comment
dmacleod
Then please, enlighten all of us with the name if you think that is somehow important or relevant.
CrazyJoe
Facebook has no conscience. Dangerous to our nation as a monopoly.
Strangerland
You can read all about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States
Strangerland
Yes it does:
Providing their name exposes them to retaliation.
Strangerland
Exposing their name IS retaliation.
dmacleod
Actually, yes, he was, but don't let actual facts get into the way of your alternative narrative.
SuperLib
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.
Chip Star
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!"
Sneezy
Go on then.
Serrano
Pffft, we all know who it is, and he ain't a whistleblower, he's an Obama holdover and leaker.
Omachi
Who? Trump?
Blacklabel
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.
TheLongTermer
No, its called freedom of speech. Cant have it both ways.
WilliB
Really? Remind me how they protected Snowden, Assange, or Manning.
Wolfpack
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.
Wolfpack
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.
Wolfpack
How is censoring Facebook posts considered freedom of speech?
TheLongTermer
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.
Blacklabel
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."
Blacklabel
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.
bass4funk
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.
Blacklabel
Its fine, we will release it when and if we feel like it. As its not illegal.
Blacklabel
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.