Whistleblowers: The Bad and the Okay

Image from: Countable Timeline: Ukraine Whistleblower Saga



Whistleblowers: The Bad and the Okay

Some whistleblowers more acceptable than some others.

Democracy Now is not always my cup of tea, since it's gung-ho on "climate change", but I do commend it for its ongoing support of the Palestinian fight for freedom, and of whistle blowers Assange, Manning and Snowden.

From Democracy Now: Snowden Knows Exactly Why No One Wants to Be a Whistleblower

• “I have a lot of respect for whistleblowers,” President Donald Trump said at a news conference Wednesday, before qualifying, “but only when they are real.” It remains unclear what the first U.S. president who comes from reality television means by “real.” What is clear is that the impeachment inquiry announced last week by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has infuriated Trump as it picks up steam. The inquiry is based largely on the complaint of a single whistleblower, who revealed, through legally prescribed channels, details of Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to investigate one of Trump’s 2020 presidential rivals ...
• “How is it that there has been just one whistleblower?” Preet Bharara, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, asked in a tweet. “Gee I wonder,” replied Edward Snowden ...

Another burning question: How is it that it's so difficult to impeach Trump?

Time tried to answer that question in early 2017:

• ... after Trump’s former campaign manager and longtime personal lawyer were found guilty of financial crimes in separate federal courtrooms on Tuesday. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, pleaded guilty to eight felonies and testified under oath that he had paid two women to keep quiet about alleged affairs with Trump “at the direction of a candidate for federal office.”
• ...Cohen’s lawyer later connected that plea more directly to Trump. “If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?” Lanny Davis tweeted.

The Constitution states that a president can be impeached if convicted of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Those looking to impeach Trump would need to show he has done something that falls into one of those categories.

Extramarital romps are merely food for gossip, and even Trump's Christian followers forgave him his personal weaknesses, saying that he was merely "a flawed, imperfect tool of God".

There are some things that conservative Christians simply have to overlook if they want a conservative leader. Trump is a huge supporter of the "Holy Land", the place to which Jesus has long been scheduled to return. Trump's religiosity in Israel's direction has trumped his sleazy personal predilections.

The Dems failed to defeat the Repug power with mere sleaze against Trump. But now that the US has another election on the horizon, they are more determined than ever to find something that will stick and they don't mind doing it with the help of OMIGAWD a whistleblower.

But, would you believe the privacy of said blower is being protected by the director of national intelligence? When it comes to acceptance of whistleblowing, it very much depends on who does the blowing about whom and when.

CBS: Pelosi launches formal Trump impeachment inquiry

• "This week, the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically," Pelosi said. "The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections."

How did Pelosi know about this? Well ...

• In August, an anonymous member of the intelligence community filed a whistleblower complaint with the intelligence community inspector general, who determined it constituted an "urgent concern" requiring congressional notification under federal law.​

And why was the matter not dealt with?  Because ...

• ... after consulting with the Justice Department and White House, the acting director of national intelligence came to a different conclusion, and has refused to provide the complaint to congressional committees.

Now, as if to prove its own descent into lunacy, the US is suing for the proceeds from Edward Snowden's recently published book "Permanent Record" -- making no rational sense whatsoever, since the US "Justice" Department would then be profiting from what they have heretofore denounced as criminal activities.

NewYorkPost:

• The lawsuit also names as defendants the book’s publisher, Henry Holt, and Company “solely to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden, or at his direction, while the court resolves” the lawsuit.

Gee, I wish I could direct you to Off-Guardian's review of Snowden's book, but apparently they are "under attack". Meanwhile, Canadian bookstores (and no doubt Amazon and other online book sellers) will have no problem profiting from the sale of the book, and I've just bought a copy locally, though I think I will watch the following Democracy Now 6-part interview series with Snowden wherein he discusses the lawsuit.

    Part 1: “Financial Censorship Is Still Censorship”: Edward Snowden Slams Justice Dept. Lawsuit Against Him
    Part 2: Edward Snowden Condemns Trump’s Mistreatment of Whistleblower Who Exposed Ukraine Scandal
    Part 3: Permanent Record: Why NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden Risked His Life to Expose Surveillance State
    Part 4: Edward Snowden: Private Contractors Play Key Role in U.S. Intelligence’s “Creeping Authoritarianism”
    Part 5: Snowden Reveals How He Secretly Exposed NSA Criminal Wrongdoing Without Getting Arrested
    Part 6: Whistleblower Edward Snowden on Trump, Obama & How He Ended Up in Russia to Avoid U.S. Extradition