WNYShooter Loc: WNY

They disclosed to Congress, one of the AUTHORIZED authorities, thus they fit the legal definition of "Whistle blower" according to the two subs I already listed. Really sorry that this is obviously way over your head. But it is written law.

Triple G

No, a petition to congress does not cut it and you've not provided evidence of that anyway. It would still need a granting of the petition. They have as yet, not been ascertained as whistleblowers and do not enjoy whistleblower protection.

Triple G

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Quite obviously, this legal stuff is way beyond the comprehension of some of the Dem Useful Idiots here, so I will attempt to dumb it down a good amount in hopes that even they might understand it--but I'm skeptical that I'll be able to dumb it down far enough for some of those idiots.



How to Make a Protected Disclosure:

It is unlawful for your employer to retaliate against you for making a “protected disclosure.” A disclosure is protected if it meets two criteria:

1. The disclosure must be based on a reasonable belief that wrongdoing has occurred. As explained in the chart below, the definition of wrongdoing varies slightly depending on your place of employment.

2. The disclosure must also be made to a person or entity that is authorized to receive it. Employees who reasonably believe they have evidence of wrongdoing are always protected for submitting that information to the OIG Hotline. However, as explained in the chart below, the other authorized audiences are different, depending on your place of employment.

FBI Employees:

Wrongdoing Defined:

Violation of any law, rule or regulation;
Gross mismanagement;
Gross waste of funds;
Abuse of authority; and
Substantial and specific danger to public health or safety

Authorized Audiences
For all disclosures, classified or unclassified, an FBI employee is only protected if the disclosure is made to:

(F) as described in section 7211;

[b]§7211. [b]Employees' right to petition Congress
The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Too funny, it's no wonder you're so clueless, seeing the sources you're using. Heck, that site doesn't make the mark on the Useful Idiot Approved Information Source List:

Overall, we rate Bipartisan Report Questionable based on Extreme Left Bias, promotion of propaganda, numerous failed fact checks, and a complete lack of transparency.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Fake News
Bias Rating: EXTREME LEFT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bipartisan-report/

Triple G

You put out a lot of words, but no proof that these three Jordan witnesses have filed any if the required notices or that they enjoy the protection under Whistleblower status. I'll leave it here that you (and she) will be proven incorrect.

"It’s important, first, to dispel the myth that these agents count as whistleblowers,” Figliuzzi wrote. “To be officially designated whistleblowers, FBI employees must follow specific procedures. None of Jordan’s witnesses did so, thus, none of them was granted whistleblower status. More importantly, real FBI whistleblowers must also legitimately attempt to make what’s known as a protected disclosure of serious misconduct or criminal wrongdoing — usually described as waste, fraud or abuse.”

Under an entity in the federal Justice Department known as the Office of Professional Responsibility, standards for whistleblower status include having made a “protected disclosure” in which it was communicated that they “reasonably believed that his or her disclosure to the designated official or entity showed a violation of law, rules, or regulations; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”

It’s not just a given that this standard would be met. Covertly copying internal files, as one of the individuals from whom Jordan heard was accused of doing, isn’t a protected disclosure, and neither is the alleged violation by that same individual of Florida law demanding that both parties consent before a conversation be recorded. A second guy, Marcus Allen, was alleged to have reported finding no substantially relevant information in open-source research on a January 6 subject who was later alleged to have assaulted police. Again — not a protected disclosure!"

Maybe Jordan believes in the "i can just think it" rationale like his hero, trump. That's crashing in on trump and will crash in on Jordan too. I'm off to a concert on a beautiful night. Hope you have something equally fun to do.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Fake news Bipartisanreport? Lol

They are nowhere near bipartisan at all

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

LOL, The law is plainly written, I can't help you if your unable to comprehend it.

Triple G

Enjoy your evening.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Deleted

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

All over the news today...at least two of these whistle-blowers were paid by Trump associate Kash Patel.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Lol ya and so? Patel donated money to them last 6 months ago in Nov 2022 to help feed their families. Was that somehow illegal or inappropriate?