Quote:
Originally Posted by Chung Tran
they are not completely private, or there would be no need for a Whistleblower statute.
....
|
When was the last time you did any "research*" on the so called ...
.... "Whistleblower statute"?
*excluding the legal-eagle pundits on the lamestream media ...
I guess you are "assuming" the "Whistleblower statute" was directed at actions of the POTUS ... and that Joe Smuck can eavesdrop on conversations between the POTUS and another world leader with the intent to disclose the content of the conversation and be protected by the statute. That, of course, "assumes" that the admitted "wiretapper" and "eavesdropper" actually intercepted and listened to the communication and/or recorded the conversation to support his or her allegations.
Do you believe his or she is protected from being prosecuted for the interception of the communication without permission of one or both of the parties? Just disclose his or her name and position in the administration.
BTW: Has someone actually admitted they heard Trump threaten the Ukrainians with withholding weapon systems and/or military equipment/supplies? Or is this another one of those .... "he probably did" .... "you know he did" bullshit accusations?
You're smarter than that, aren't you?
