The below tweet is pro-Trump political spin, but not supported by law or facts.
DOJ did not analyze 50 USC §3234, the applicable #Whistleblower protection statute for intelligence community employees, which Trump is required to enforce.
Read the law and try again.
DOJ did not analyze 50 USC §3234, the applicable #Whistleblower protection statute for intelligence community employees, which Trump is required to enforce.
Read the law and try again.
It’s absurd for anyone to argue that a federal employee who reports wrongdoing to an Inspector General is not protected by the #Whistleblower statute. Read 50 USC §3234.
It’s equally absurd to argue that because the law says that if you request confidentiality when you submit a #Whistleblower disclosure the Inspector General will keep it confidential that it’s okay for the POTUS or anyone else to breach confidentiality.
One reason it’s absurd to say it’s okay to reveal the alleged name of the #Whistleblower is that only the Inspector General knows for sure who is the #Whistleblower. You can’t confirm your speculation without violating the statute and other laws that protect privacy.
Another reason the argument that it’s okay to reveal the identity of a confidential #Whistleblower is that it’s a criminal violation if done willfully. 18 USC §1513(e). For more analysis you can read our recent column. thehill.com/blogs/congress…
To be sure, other criminal obstruction of justice statutes might also apply for revealing and attacking the #Whistleblower, but a recent court ruling affirming the conviction for social media posts identifying a confidential informant & calling them a “snitch” is instructive.
Typo... forgot to add absurd... should read is *absurd
