On 2023-03-17 7:52 p.m., RichA wrote:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64991918
>

The whistleblower law only protects informants who report crimes to the
authorities. He didn't do that.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2023-03-17 7:52 p.m., RichA wrote:

>>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64991918

>The whistleblower law only protects informants who report crimes to the
>authorities. He didn't do that.

Protection isn't even that broad, Johnston. The federal employee or
sometimes the employee of a federal contractor must be reporting some sort
of wrongdoing under federal law. The employee is extremely limited in
how he reports wrongdoing, as it must be to a DESIGNATED authority like
the executive department's Inspector General, and if that DESIGNATED
authority sits on his hands, it's not like the employee gets to shop
the information around till someone else with an investigatory interest
bites. If he takes evidence out of his own department for the purpose
of bringing the wrongdoing to light, giving it to an investigative
reporter or a Congression committee investigating the wrongdoing,
the whistleblower protection statute does not prevent him from being
prosecuted for theft of government property as we saw over and over again
in the Obama administration.

In the private sector, the protection is limited to retaliation from his
own boss. If he gets fired regardless or forced to quit, he doesn't get
another job in his field. Again, the wrongdoing must be properly
reported.

>--
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>www.avast.com

Would you turn the fucking spammed advertisement off, Johnston? Someone as
pedantic as you damn well knows he's not sending an email message when
posting an article to Usenet.