so there are two whistleblowers now involved. the second one is said to have firsthand nknowledge of this juy 25th phone call, according to this whistleblower s attorney. we do know a few things already, don t we? we do. if past is prologue, the president will try to out the second whistleblower and bully him or her just like he did with the first one despite the fact that under u.s. law these whistleblowers have the right to make what we call protected disclosures. as federal employees, they have a right to privacy under the privacy act. under the intelligence community whistleblower protection act, they are authorized to make these protected disclosures without fear of retaliation. as members of the intelligence community, that includes retaliation in terms of being fired or any negative impact on their security clearance adjudication process. this first whistleblower said that he or she was not a direct witness. the intelligence community
some relevant period. is it wrong for him to not act on the mere suggestion from porter himself, which is denied? it sounds reasonable that he wouldn t say, oh, they may bring this up and you say they re false. i m firing you any way. right now. and contrary to what the president is claiming in his tweets, i don t think i or anyone else is claiming that you should immediately fire anybody the minute anybody raises any sort of an allegation. true. but what we have here is in the end a photograph, two witnesses, an inability to get a clearance for over a year and a protective order issued by a county court. maybe he didn t know all of those things, but even if he knew some, he could have done some proactive looking into this. they keep saying, well, we were waiting for the security clearance adjudication clearance process finished. first of all, don t say it s normal for about 30 or more people to not have their clearances yet a year. that s exactly what jared kushner s counsel s