Welcome Guest

the statute specifically contemplates continued protection

Posted on: September 30, 2019 at 09:18:58 CT

gmmm98 MU

Posts:

13786

Member For:

15.14 yrs

Level:

User

M.O.B. Votes:

for the whistleblower in the event the executive branch attempts to kill a whistleblower report. the protections continue. 50 usc 3033(k)(5)(D).

you're not doing well in this thread.

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

MESSAGE THREAD

Changed rules! - Ace AU - 9/30 07:45:45

which is 100% correct (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 07:49:15

Is his statement not true? (nm) - tcat KC - 9/30 07:48:42

It was a question not a statement (nm) - pickle MU

- 9/30 07:54:03

that's true (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 07:55:11

the statute did not change - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 07:50:26

use your brain. i'll give you an example. I've made no - blake1771 KC - 9/30 08:35:28

a more comparable comparison is - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 09:12:40

a more apt analogy would be an individual making - blake1771 KC - 9/30 09:43:56

maybe you reported it because you're an a**hole - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 10:40:09

that is an awful analogy (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:15:21

ok. the statute is unchanged. show me where the CFRs changed - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 08:45:28

are you talking about the code of fed regulations? you can - blake1771 KC - 9/30 08:50:43

a rule that does not exist was changed - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 09:01:36

well if you want to talk rules the OLC said the entire f'n - blake1771 KC - 9/30 09:10:59

the statute specifically contemplates continued protection - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 09:18:58

You are all over the place (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:23:22

it was directly responsive. - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 09:31:05

It would not have been deemed "urgent" to begin with - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:32:35

but not the result - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 09:41:07

i'm not acknowledging the rule never existed. you're - blake1771 KC - 9/30 09:47:25

at least you're getting to the meat and potatoes. - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 10:03:42

What result are you talking about? - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:43:56

lol but that's different! (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:14:50

The reporting requirements on the urgent form - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:05:49

jfc you are stuck on a liberal talking point (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:50:37

They changed the requirement for something to - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:00:10

the statute is unchanged - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 08:04:34

It's odd you keep going to that - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:15:13

it's odd the subject is "the rules" - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 08:18:45

This is referring to a very specific part of the reporting - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:19:15

because it does not exist in the statute - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 08:20:25

The urgent request form would have been rejected - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:22:28

"an extra-legislative rule added by the executive branch - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 08:32:32

No ... you can't read (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:51:06

OMG... somebody changed FORM? - mizzoumurfkc KC - 9/30 08:16:49

Does that mean anything is a lie? - Ace AU - 9/30 08:20:22

Nope! (nm) - mizzoumurfkc KC - 9/30 08:21:43

Yes, they did - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:17:18

LOL - Ace AU - 9/30 07:53:11

In your opinion but i guess you’re the king now - tcat KC - 9/30 07:56:35

What if he's put under oath? - Toger STL - 9/30 08:03:34

I agree, but I want all of them under oath. (nm) - tcat KC - 9/30 09:25:43

So your saying that rumors have always been allowed - tcat KC - 9/30 07:52:16

i didn't look at the legislative history since nixon - gmmm98 MU

- 9/30 08:09:02

lol you are stuck on an odd talking point - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:16:39