(11-19-2019, 02:44 AM)jj82284 Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 09:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: Dude.
You have, multiple occasions on this forum, touted yourself as someone with experience working for our government.  I forget if you served in the armed forces or were on the defense contractor side of things.  Either way, you held it over me, saying I sounded ignorant because I lacked your knowledge/experience/jargon whatever.

If you don't understand the whistleblower statutes and the protections they offer and require, I can't help you.  You wouldn't listen to me even if I could.

Everything in the unredacted version of the whistleblower report has been read in and confirmed by other witnesses anyhow.

The whistleblower statute 

A.) Doesnt apply to Eric Ciaramela.  That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the office of legal counsel for the doj.  

B.) Only Prevents the IG from revealing the name of the whistleblower.  That's one public officer.  It says nothing about universal guarantees of anonymity.  

Moreover, the majority already outed the whistleblower by not redacting his name from certain released depositions.  

As to testimony "confirming" the whistleblower complaint...  have u been paying attention.  We have a transcript.  The leaker contended that there were multiple references to a quid pro quo involving military aid and investigations.  The military aid in question was NEVER MENTIONED on the call.