|
|
Post by freecharlie on Nov 23, 2019 18:54:58 GMT
I hate that people are doing this.
Even if the guy is the whistleblower, people are putting his life in danger by posting it.
I reported my FILs post to Facebook. Hopefully they take it down. But it was a share and I can't figure out how to report the original post.
|
|
|
|
Post by flanz on Nov 23, 2019 19:01:04 GMT
I haven't seen anything. thanks for reporting your FIL! This sort of action pisses me off no end, crazies endangering lives!!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 15:55:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2019 19:01:21 GMT
A person’s name has been all over the internet for awhile now.
I personally don’t think it is right especially without proof. I would expect the name to come out in the Senate trial if Trump is impeached.
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Nov 23, 2019 19:28:09 GMT
A person’s name has been all over the internet for awhile now. I personally don’t think it is right especially without proof. I would expect the name to come out in the Senate trial if Trump is impeached. I know, but it doesn't make it right. There has been no confirmation and posting and sharing and giving the fb crazies fodder. The guy will have a large target on his back. |
|
MorningPerson
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,503 
Location: Central Pennsylvania
|
Post by MorningPerson on Nov 23, 2019 20:06:48 GMT
One of my FB "friends" posted this a few days ago. (Along with a "gotcha" type of comment.)  More than anything, it showed me who SHE was. I've lost respect for her. |
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Nov 23, 2019 21:04:05 GMT
If I saw anyone on FB doing this, they would be reported and blocked.
Garbage people are everywhere, sadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Nov 23, 2019 21:42:52 GMT
If I saw anyone on FB doing this, they would be reported and blocked. Garbage people are everywhere, sadly. Can't block FIL, and DH's aunt, and BIL and... However, I do block each and every share they have. For a while it works and then they seem to find the ones I haven't blocked |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Nov 24, 2019 5:21:26 GMT
A person’s name has been all over the internet for awhile now. I personally don’t think it is right especially without proof. I would expect the name to come out in the Senate trial if Trump is impeached. Whistleblowers are protected by law from having their identities revealed if they don’t care to out themselves. In addition, there is no need for the whistleblower to be outed or expected to testify during a Senate trial. All they did was report incidents that troubled them. The situation was investigated and evidence collected. The whistleblower’s opinion becomes irrelevant as actual evidence accumulates. Trying to force the whistleblower to testify is just another defense attempt at witness intimidation. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 15:55:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 12:29:59 GMT
A person’s name has been all over the internet for awhile now. I personally don’t think it is right especially without proof. I would expect the name to come out in the Senate trial if Trump is impeached. Whistleblowers are protected by law from having their identities revealed if they don’t care to out themselves. In addition, there is no need for the whistleblower to be outed or expected to testify during a Senate trial. All they did was report incidents that troubled them. The situation was investigated and evidence collected. The whistleblower’s opinion becomes irrelevant as actual evidence accumulates. Trying to force the whistleblower to testify is just another defense attempt at witness intimidation. There is some debate about how far that protection extends. Again, I agreed it was wrong to push a name out publicly especially without any proof. I think it is naive to think Senate Republicans will not call that person, Hunter Biden and anyone else they want to for a Senate trial. They’ll be the ones running that event. Of course, they could do something super short to vote and move on but I expect they will want “get them back” since that seems to be what all politicians do. |
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Nov 24, 2019 13:15:14 GMT
A person’s name has been all over the internet for awhile now. I personally don’t think it is right especially without proof. I would expect the name to come out in the Senate trial if Trump is impeached. Whistleblowers are protected by law from having their identities revealed if they don’t care to out themselves. In addition, there is no need for the whistleblower to be outed or expected to testify during a Senate trial. All they did was report incidents that troubled them. The situation was investigated and evidence collected. The whistleblower’s opinion becomes irrelevant as actual evidence accumulates. Trying to force the whistleblower to testify is just another defense attempt at witness intimidation. I agree with this. After the testimony last week, I would think having the whistleblower testify would be moot. Their purpose was just to open the can of worms. Sondland and Vindmin blew it up. |
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Nov 24, 2019 13:35:50 GMT
If I saw anyone on FB doing this, they would be reported and blocked. Garbage people are everywhere, sadly. Can't block FIL, and DH's aunt, and BIL and... However, I do block each and every share they have. For a while it works and then they seem to find the ones I haven't blocked I have ended up snoozing family members on FB and restricting some of my posts. Which has made FB more annoying to use (and I use it a lot less) but also saves me some irritation. The last few years have opened my eyes on a lot of people. |
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Nov 24, 2019 14:21:52 GMT
If I saw anyone on FB doing this, they would be reported and blocked. Garbage people are everywhere, sadly. Can't block FIL, and DH's aunt, and BIL and... However, I do block each and every share they have. For a while it works and then they seem to find the ones I haven't blocked Why can’t you block them? There’s no requirement to follow anyone on social media. They’re still family even if you don’t give them free reign to spew idiocy on your device. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 15:55:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 14:49:24 GMT
A person’s name has been all over the internet for awhile now. I personally don’t think it is right especially without proof. I would expect the name to come out in the Senate trial if Trump is impeached. Whistleblowers are protected by law from having their identities revealed if they don’t care to out themselves. In addition, there is no need for the whistleblower to be outed or expected to testify during a Senate trial. All they did was report incidents that troubled them. The situation was investigated and evidence collected. The whistleblower’s opinion becomes irrelevant as actual evidence accumulates. Trying to force the whistleblower to testify is just another defense attempt at witness intimidation.  A whistleblower should be given equal protections as do witnesses against intimidation and retaliation IMO. I don't understand what people have to gain in outing any whistleblower. In the long run they are doing themselves a disservice and condoning illegal and corrupt behaviour within any organisation which in turn stops people doing it in the future because of the risk involved. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Nov 24, 2019 17:11:56 GMT
Whistleblowers are protected by law from having their identities revealed if they don’t care to out themselves. In addition, there is no need for the whistleblower to be outed or expected to testify during a Senate trial. All they did was report incidents that troubled them. The situation was investigated and evidence collected. The whistleblower’s opinion becomes irrelevant as actual evidence accumulates. Trying to force the whistleblower to testify is just another defense attempt at witness intimidation. There is some debate about how far that protection extends. Again, I agreed it was wrong to push a name out publicly especially without any proof. I think it is naive to think Senate Republicans will not call that person, Hunter Biden and anyone else they want to for a Senate trial. They’ll be the ones running that event. Of course, they could do something super short to vote and move on but I expect they will want “get them back” since that seems to be what all politicians do. I’m not so sure the Republicans will be running the show. (Anyone who knows better, feel free to correct me.) But looking back on the Clinton impeachment, as I recall, it was the Republican impeachment managers from the House (Lindsay Graham blathering on about “cleansing the Oval Office” comes to mind) who were in charge of presenting the evidence they themselves chose. Was there a defense presented, too? I don’t remember. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 15:55:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 18:15:06 GMT
impeachment nymagThis article and many others out there lay out what happens. Basically the constitution is vague except for the number of votes needed and who is supposed to be the judge. The length, depth, witnesses, evidence seem all up to whatever the Senate decides it wants to do and their current rules.
|
|
A whistleblower should be given equal protections as do witnesses against intimidation and retaliation IMO.