• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nunes Aide Is Leaking the Ukraine Whistleblower’s Name, Sources Say

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
zinfamous said:
Yes and no--as I mentioned in the earlier thread, Snowden is no whistleblower. The Trump WB, or at least the reports of those contained in their statement, all tried the normal route of going through proper channels to lodge their complaints. Some multiple times, according to testimony. When they saw deliberate stonewalling towards what they believed to be a very real crime(s) (and remember this is actually the reports of several people), their complaints became the WB complaint. ...this is how we define whistleblowers--generally career servants that "believe in the cause" of wherever they are, and upon discovering general or gross malfeasance, feel pushed to testify against certain crimes after being constantly rebuffed in their attempts to shed light on/correct these problems from within the institution that they had otherwise trusted. They observe a defined break down in rules and standards, recognize the problem of such, and seek to remedy it.

...none of that applies to Snowden, who specifically took a job in order to gain access to classified information for the express purpose of exposing it, "whatever it was." (again, Snowden was and remains ignorant of the content in the vast majority of what he collected--and all of this by his own words, by the way, in his biography. I'm not inferring his behavior here--just repeating what he actually says about his actions and intent.) ...I wouldn't go so far to say that this is a distinction without a difference, when it comes to how we really do benefit overall with what Snowden did, but it is a significant distinction, nonetheless. Snowden was extremely careless in how he went about it, and I don't think he is anybody that future whistleblowers should emulate. For one thing, he is a perfect example of how such a person could be honestly excoriated and their actions called into question--laws weren't really what interested him. His was fueled mostly by isolation and paranoia, and a very real sense of "revenge against the world." (again, his own words. Not mine)
Click to expand...

Are you talking about Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden? Snowden did go through the material before release, It was Chelsea Manning who did the indiscriminate dump of everything.
 
glenn1 said:
So you changed your argument to be about process (legal right) rather than about what was disclosed being the truth? If we found out the whistleblower didn’t actually use proper legal channels or wasn’t eligible for the program then you’d be OK with them being fired or prosecuted?
Click to expand...

I didn't change the argument. You tried to, however. Or are you denying that the whistleblower was telling the truth in a venue legally crafted for them to do so & remain anonymous?

That's the reality of it. What I might say in a hypothetical scenario is immaterial.
 
glenn1 said:
So you changed your argument to be about process (legal right) rather than about what was disclosed being the truth? If we found out the whistleblower didn’t actually use proper legal channels or wasn’t eligible for the program then you’d be OK with them being fired or prosecuted?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but do you have evidence of any sort that suggests the whistleblower might have used improper channels, wasn't eligible for whistleblower protection under the law, disclosed any information of any sort material to the complaint to any person other than the IG and the CIA counsel? Or that the whistleblower was not acting in good faith? Or that subsequent disclosures to Congress and the public as to the contents of the complaint were directed by the whistleblower's actions? Any evidence whatsoever?
 
glenn1 said:
Or people making sexual assault allegations. Sone quote about “dragging $100 bill through a trailer park” seems to ring a bell. So does “vast right wing conspiracy.”
Click to expand...
Bothsides.
Can't find an equivalent link for Dems. Did not think so. Good effort.
 
glenn1 said:
Are you talking about Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden? Snowden did go through the material before release, It was Chelsea Manning who did the indiscriminate dump of everything.
Click to expand...

no he didn't. where did you read this?

Snowden found some stuff that he liked, but essentially downloaded everything that he had access to, as long as he could. This is well-known. He didn't curate anything. He essentially set up the meeting with Greenwald and that director lady and just dumped everything on them. It's the complete opposite of how Ellsworth handled what became the Pentagon Papers. ...Ellsworth, for one, was an expert in his field and was familiar with essentially every character of the documents that he was disclosing. It wasn't something that he ever set out to do, but reached the point where he felt the country was under serious threat if he didn't disclose. He also ensured that any information that would be dangerous to soldiers in the field or highly sensitive operations was redacted.

Snowden did none of that. He basically didn't care if the system burned down, and as such really had no knowledge of what he had in his hands. He simply didn't, and he will tell you that--he just published this weird biography last week.
 
So according to Schiff, he doesn't know who the whistle blower is. If that is true, how the hell would Nunes and company know? So what's the WB's name?
Ahh, the Daily Beast.
 
compuwiz1 said:
So according to Schiff, he doesn't know who the whistle blower is. If that is true, how the hell would Nunes and company know? So what's the WB's name?
Ahh, the Daily Beast.
Click to expand...

Schiff only gets the whistleblower complaint, which anonymizes it, by design. He doesn't even want to know. It doesn't matter. IG Atkinson already satisfied himself that it was credible & urgent, which does matter. OTOH, high level sleuthing in & by the executive branch can probably suss it out & provide it to allied sleazeballs like Nunes.
 
BUTCH1 said:
The whole Barr investigating his own justice Dept is just mind-boggling, the FISA warrant process is a lengthy and complex process that has to approved by Federal judges and now this buffoon is flying around the world looking for ghosts?. I hope all these amoral asshole's realize they are cementing their name's in history as the one's that possibly ruined our democracy.
Click to expand...

Not if they can keep winning elections. Remember...the victors write the history books...not the losers. 😕
 
compuwiz1 said:
So according to Schiff, he doesn't know who the whistle blower is. If that is true, how the hell would Nunes and company know? So what's the WB's name?
Ahh, the Daily Beast.
Click to expand...
Apparently the whistleblowers name was leaked already. At least that's the claim I read a little while ago.
 
Jhhnn said:
I figure 50% is an extreme exaggeration.
Click to expand...
Victorian Gray said:
Yeah, probably closer to about 35% to 40%.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is. You have 30-40% that are die hard Republicans that will believe because it is what they want to believe. Then you have all those people in the middle, the ones that only vote during presidential elections, that are for the most part low information voters, that mostly cast their vote based on who it the tallest or the one that makes the most promises (no matter how absurd) that appeals to them, they make up the majority of voters, and they have not yet caught on that the Republicans are not sincere in their arguments. They read headlines, and don't really distinguish what source they come from. So, when most of the headlines look something like 'Republicans claim House is denying President Due Process' they read no further than that headline and just believe it.
 
Rush was talking about it. By talking about it I mean slandering the supposed whistleblower. It seems as of now no one is confirming the identity and any legitimate media is staying far away. That's good. There's at least plausible deniability to keep attacking the whistleblower out of any legitimate domain. But I don't expect that to keep him personally safe which is a chilling reality of today's times.
 
SMOGZINN said:
I don't think it is. You have 30-40% that are die hard Republicans that will believe because it is what they want to believe. Then you have all those people in the middle, the ones that only vote during presidential elections, that are for the most part low information voters, that mostly cast their vote based on who it the tallest or the one that makes the most promises (no matter how absurd) that appeals to them, they make up the majority of voters, and they have not yet caught on that the Republicans are not sincere in their arguments. They read headlines, and don't really distinguish what source they come from. So, when most of the headlines look something like 'Republicans claim House is denying President Due Process' they read no further than that headline and just believe it.
Click to expand...

This tells me it's 35 to 40%

Pretty much unwavering percentage. It's up a couple of points, it's down a couple of points but it seems to average in the 35 to a bit over 40% pretty much since his election.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News

ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.
projects.fivethirtyeight.com projects.fivethirtyeight.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top