Official Discord for 1stAmender - Click to Join Us!

Fact check: adam schiffs fact-challengedclaims that the whistleblower has a right to anonymity

Articles


Tags: Politics  

Articles

Fact check: adam schiffs fact-challengedclaims that the whistleblower has a right to anonymity published by Oan
Writer Rating: 1.0000
Posted on 2019-11-20
Writer Description: Articles
This writer has written 107 articles.


“I am concerned about a bad-faith effort to out a whistleblower who has a statutory right to remain anonymous.”

— Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) in a closed-door deposition of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman Oct. 29 2019

 

“The whistleblower has a right to anonymity. There are public reports that the life of the whistleblower has been threatened. We do not want this committee used or this testimony used to try to exact political retribution against the whistleblower.”

— Schiff in a closed-door deposition of National Security Council official Tim Morrison Oct. 31 2019

 

 

“The whistleblower has the right a statutory right to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower.”

AD

— Schiff in a public hearing with Vindman Nov. 19 2019

 

 

Does the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump have a “statutory right” to remain anonymous as Schiff claims?

It’s not a right spelled out in any statute. But national security experts warn that disclosing the whistleblower’s identity could expose him to danger and retribution and chill whistleblowing in general.

 

 

The Facts

d at least twice that the whistleblower has a “statutory right” to anonymity.

 

 

 

Neither the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA) nor any related statutes have language guaranteeing anonymity for whistleblowers. These laws in conjunction with Presidential Policy Directive 19 and Intelligence Community Directive 120 provide protections from work-related retaliation. Intelligence community whistleblowers can’t be demoted fired or reassigned for legally reporting their concerns; their pay can’t be cut; they can’t be sent in for psychiatric exams; and their security clearance level can’t be touched.

 

“Nothing in the ICWPA expressly protects the anonymity of a complainant or provides sanctions for someone who discloses it ” Stephen I. Vladeck a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and an expert on national security law previously told The Fact Checker.

 

 

 

   

Sources:
No sources found for this article.

Article Rating: 2.7778



You have the right to stay anonymous in your comments, share at your own discretion.

Anonymous: 2019-11-20 03:00:11 ID:3428

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) should resign immediately.
Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 12th District) should get to work on USMCA.

Anonymous: 2019-11-20 04:54:05 ID:3429

So, someone once told a story that was bad for us. Then, it was backed up publicly by multiple people who were also there, proving the story to be true. Now, people are scouring legal texts, desperately trying to find an acceptable way to unmask and discredit the original storyteller. This should have been done months ago. It's way past the point of usefulness for us to know the guy's name. The only time this would have helped is if we had been able to nip it in the bud, get him to shut up before corroborating witnesses opened their mouths. But we missed that chance. We need to get our shit together and present a better defense.

Anonymous: 2019-11-20 04:54:40 ID:3430

rofl cool sources, you fat fucking incel morons

Anonymous: 2019-11-20 05:19:58 ID:3431

That was lame and I'm disappointed in you. By the way, tell your Dad I'll be over later. You're Mom wants to watch me drain my balls down his throat.

Anonymous: 2019-11-20 09:36:07 ID:3435

im going to drain my balls down your dads throat faggot

The 1st Amender: 2019-11-20 06:05:07 ID:3432

What is this even on about? Can someone write an article that isn't just some copy-paste spam?

Anonymous: 2019-11-20 07:28:34 ID:3433

My concern is the charade about no one knowing who the whistleblower is. We've known for months, (Enrique Marshmallows or something) but the only place that insists we don't is in that hearing. And Schiff grinning and looking at the camera like he was on a sitcom when he insisted he didn't know who it was was just galling. They seem to know what they are doing and are willing to sacrifice the stability of our republic to get what they want, not realizing they are creating a weapon that will be used against them as soon at they aren't the ones with their fingers on the trigger.

Anonymous: 2019-11-21 09:39:08 ID:3437

Those may be the illegal leaks, hence unless the IG reveals the whistle blower's name the official position of Adam Schiff ought to be "I don't know." the rules clearly state that the whistleblower has the right for the anonymity until the IG finds it unavoidable to maintain such. Only the IG can reveal his name and so far he has not come out with it.

Anonymous: 2019-11-20 07:29:02 ID:3434

From the article:

>Sources:
>No sources found for this article.

Anonymous: 2019-11-21 09:32:00 ID:3436

This "fact checker" is misleading. There is a clear rule that states that, if the whistleblower wishes to remain anonymous his identity will be not disclosed by the IG of the Intelligence Community unless and until the IG finds such to be unavoidable.