Friday, September 20, 2019

Whistleblowers According To The Early Americans - 3

Thomas Jefferson
I. Degree

The degree to which a Whistleblower in the U.S. government is mistreated is directly related to the degree of corruption that been established within that government (Quotes).

In the first post of this series the essence of this concept in its original form was pointed out:
On July 30, 1778, the Continental Congress created the first whistleblower protection law, stating “that it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States to give the earliest information to Congress or other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds, or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states.”
(Whistleblowers According To The Early Americans, emphasis added). That was then but now is now, so, here is how are we doing on this issue now:
"The Limits of Current Federal Employee Whistleblower Protections

Most federal employees who are retaliated against for speaking up and blowing the whistle have just a single avenue to find justice. That remedy can be found at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB, whose three Board members are appointed by the President and confirms by the Senate, reviews the whistleblower cases of federal employees, and makes the final determination.

As a result, most federal employees do not have the avenue for redress that some other federal employees, and all private sector workers, have – and that many Americans would assume that federal employees do have. Federal employees cannot currently have their whistleblower cases heard in federal district court. That means that these employees cannot appeal to a court for justice; only a single administrative law judge, or at most the three-person panel of the MSPB, can make a decision on their case. There are no options for federal court access, and certainly no hope of having a jury of their peers."
(National Whistleblower Center, emphasis added). The saying "you've come a long way baby" does not apply in the same way as it was intended, because in terms of Whistleblower rights, we have gone a long way down the wrong way.

This is the direction that Thomas Jefferson indicated all governments travel in, unless among other things, the power originally lodged in Whistleblowers prevents it:
“Experience has shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
(Thomas Jefferson). Yes, experience can be a competent teacher.

II. A Whistleblower Complaint

At this time a Whistleblower event is the talk of the town in D.C. because it involves high-ups and cover-ups:
"Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson determined that the complaint was credible and troubling enough to be considered a matter of “urgent concern,” a legal threshold that requires notification of congressional oversight committees.

But acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire has refused to share details about Trump’s alleged transgression with lawmakers, touching off a legal and political dispute that has spilled into public view and prompted speculation that the spy chief is improperly protecting the president."
(Washington Post). A former acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, @ Twitter wrote: "This is going to be huge. DOJ& Admin are contorting themselves backwards to try to hide this. Truth will come out. There are probably tapes and transcripts documenting a gross abuse of power by Trump. Gonna be ugly.And enablers should all face consequence."

III. Update

The Ukraine government did an investigation years ago into the issues that "America's Mayor" (Rudy Poot) brought up recently:
"What it does not need is underinformed dinosaurs wading into its sensitive political ecosystem to make points for domestic American consumption. Unfortunately, this is precisely what is now happening — thanks to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani [Rudy Poot].

The trouble began when right-wing bloggers sought to meld these two points into a single conspiracy in which Joe Biden had the prosecutor sacked to protect his son’s business interests. I may be an outsider to the bewildering mess that is Ukrainian politics, but, on this particular issue, I have a genuine insight into what happened, having written extensively about Hunter Biden’s ex-employer, Mykola Zlochevsky.

As a result, when journalists seek the fire behind the smoke in the Biden-Ukraine tale, they often call to ask my opinion. Many are eager to flesh out what seems a satisfyingly simple conspiracy, but I have to tell them: It isn’t true. The timeline doesn’t work. The investigation into Burisma, Hunter Biden’s employer, had ground to a halt long before the prosecutor was sacked. A subsequent probe into the company’s owner was opened because of a request from Ukrainian legislators, not because of prosecutorial initiative. There is, in short, no there there; the bloggers are putting two and two together — and coming up with 22."
(Why the alleged Joe Biden ‘Ukraine conspiracy’ doesn’t hold up). This is another product of the lying habit the presnit and Rudy Poot are infected with.

IV. Closing Comments

Another news source indicates that it is worse than that, it is an attempt to have the state victim fabricate a false story:
"So Trump didn’t press Zelensky to investigate Biden–he used the power of his office to extort the newly elected Ukrainian leader to fabricate a controversy about a domestic political opponent."
(Raw Story, emphasis added). When things get "worst," the degrees of the political evil eventually become irrelevant, so I only mention this source because it nails down the nuances of this wrongdoing to a fine degree.

The shape shifters are bringing corruption to a maximum degree by bringing government integrity to a minimum degree (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20).

The previous post in this series is here.

Ode about a corrupt official:


  1. Some of the legalistic media are saying that Presidential conversations are off-limits to congressional oversight. However, it is common for presidents to have staff hear and even transcribe those conversations. In response to the whistle blower complaint, Trump said he knew his call was being monitored, so why would he say something criminal. He waived the right to not be overheard. Besides, criminal wrongdoing can not be hidden by executive privilege (link).

  2. "Trump claims immunity from any kind of criminal investigation whatsoever" (Vice Dot Com).

  3. Transcript of telephone call:

  4. "Whistleblower complaint accuses Trump administration of pattern of obfuscation" (The Hill)