Why We Can't Have Federal Whistleblowers, Per Congress

/in /by

I’m watching the debate over amendment adding federal whistleblower protection to the stimulus package, on CSPAN.

And thus far, I’ve seen the following explanations for why we can’t have our billions of dollars in stimulus and TARP funds protected by Federal whistleblower protections.

Crazy Pete Hoekstra says we can’t have federal whistleblower protection because it would expose sources and methods.

Think about that. We can’t allow federal employees to come forward to report waste and fraud (and subsequently have their jobs protected) because doing so would expose sources and methods. 

Apparently, we’re stimulating the economy by employing a bunch of new spooks.

Then, another Congressman (sorry, didn’t get who it was) who argued that federal whistleblower protection would make it hard for TSA to ramp up screeners quickly.

Don’t worry, though, because the amendment just passed. So apparently those spooks who are getting hired under stimulus (!) better be careful…

  1. AlbertFall says:

    Obama’s concessions on birth control or taxes give him the ability to say he worked with the Reps, and the Reps crazy whining marginalizes them further. He seems to be giving them plenty of room to be stupid.

    • dakine01 says:

      The thing is, Obama seems to be doing nothing even after the Rs show their excessive stupid. And they will show their stupid regardless. So maybe he needs to quit pandering to them.

      It sounds as if Hoekstra and others are concerned that the American Taxpayers might find out all the “sources and methods” being used to rip them off

    • LabDancer says:

      Isn’t this reminiscent of the approved way to deal with a destructive alcoholic in the family?

      Concede on some tolerable craziness to get ‘em to commit to a plan; make sure to include them in invitations to family get-togethers; listen with patient sympathy to all the complaints and whining about feeling beleaguered & suffering so much pain from ‘the stupid plan’; explain how you have to enforce boundaries they themselves forced and agreed to, to establish respect & for their own good; rinse & repeat as needed, each time slowly calmly shutting the lid of the box a bit more; then the electorate comes along & cuts off the oxygen supply; & finally the whole box gets hauled off as landfill.

  2. PJEvans says:

    A friend keeps telling me that obama will get what he wants, because he’ll drop the hammer on the GOoPers and the Blue Dogs. (Cue phrases like “‘no drama’ Obama’”.)
    I keep my mouth shut (with difficulty), because this is the same person who kept telling me that Roberts would be a great Chief Justice.

    FWIW, said friend was born and at least partly raised in OK. I know not everyone from OK is like Coburn and Inhofe, but there seems to be some failure of education or something there, that they can be conservative without knowing it.

    • Dismayed says:

      I grew up in OK and still have family there. It’s a very low information state. Rural and gullible. The daily oklahoman is the big paper and it’s printed in REALLY LARGE PRINT (no kidding) big print takes up space more cheaply than content, and the paper tend to be thin on top of that. The tulsa world is up there as well, but Tulsa is a kool-aid town for the most part. The whole damn state runs real short on clues. Lots of lots of churches up there, and lots of rural ministers from small towns and little local seminaries. The whole state – well, they just don’t get out much.

      But god love em’ they are damn nice folks, they just mostly like to be left alone.

      • freepatriot says:

        god love em’ they are damn nice folks, they just mostly like to be left alone.

        they got a damn fine football team too

        BOOMER SOONERS

  3. JohnLopresti says:

    Here is a link to a Tongass AK whistleblower hounded out of employment. He had reported logging entities creating roads without permits in a preserve. During executive leave, he deceased from some corporeal ailment. Evidently the antiwhistleblowing by the government seeking to silence his reports endured until very recently. The article linked is the current issue of Forest Magazine.

  4. selise says:

    Then, another Congressman (sorry, didn’t get who it was) who argued that federal whistleblower protection would make it hard for TSA to ramp up screeners quickly.

    i believe that was david price (d-nc), but he said he would support even so.

  5. perris says:

    I’m watching the debate over amendment adding federal whistleblower protection to the stimulus package, on CSPAN.

    you know, we really need to take some language pointers from republicans

    I am telling you, the word “whistleblower” is a perjurative, this is a fact, while some of you think it’s a benign word I am telling you in many circles it is not

    it’s synonym where I grew up is “rat fink”

    we need to propose these new laws using a differant word, somthing like “watchdog law” or “guardian protection”, something like that

    • Margot says:

      They won’t like that either. You can call them anything you want. They don’t like the fact that they exist, never mind the word to describe them.

      • perris says:

        it doesn’t matter what they like it matters what the word means

        for instance we lose too much ground allowing water torture to be called “water boarding” instead of “pouring water down your throat till you die and then revive you”

        words have effect and “whistle blower” for many cirvles the term does not serve our point of view

  6. bobschacht says:

    Crazy Pete Hoekstra says we can’t have federal whistleblower protection because it would expose sources and methods.

    And he doesn’t mind if those sources and methods are illegal?
    Suppose “method” = “torture” and “source” = a public official who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

    Hoekstra should not be allowed to get away with this crap.

    What’s his hometown newspaper?

    Bob in HI

  7. TheraP says:

    expose sources and methods


    To whom?

    Whistle-blowers could come forward internally. They can provide for that in the legislation. If it’s something confidential, they have only to provide venues so people can live up to their sworn oaths.

  8. plunger says:

    Actually it would expose the mechanisms and authorities by which “money” is created from thin air by a private banking cabal that we’ve all been led to believe is Federal called the “Federal Reserve Bank” – which is neither private, nor holds any reserves.

    These would-be whistleblowers could clearly demonstrate, once and for all, that the so-called “bailout” is nothing more than simple theft of taxpayer funds – loaned at interest – by the cabal that caused the crisis – intentionally, for the theft that it enabled.

    Further, they would demonstrate the collusion with Goldman Sachs and their agents (Paulson et al) inside the Treasury Department, which has itself been privatized by the same cabal of banksters – in cooperation with none other than one Timothey Geithner – the former President of the New York FED, and Paulson’s replacement on behalf of the Master Of The New World Order Universe, David Rockefeller.

    Overlay Geithner’s career path with Rockefeller-funded or controlled efforts and entities, and see what you learn. He and Paulson collaborated to take down which entities? And that benefited whom? How?

    Ask the whistleblowers – they know the ENTIRE TRUTH.

    Conspiracy. It’s not just for theorist’s any more!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPU8w7Bxc0A

  10. TarheelDem says:

    Then, another Congressman (sorry, didn’t get who it was) who argued that federal whistleblower protection would make it hard for TSA to ramp up screeners quickly.

    That was David Price (D-NC-04). I don’t know who’s water he’s carrying on this. He should know better, being a relatively reliable progressive.

  13. Hmmm says:

    Crazy Pete Hoekstra says we can’t have federal whistleblower protection because it would expose sources and methods.

    Ah yes, the old “If I told you, I’d have to kill you” gambit. Always a winner in any serious debate…

  14. behindthefall says:

    O/T – Maybe everybody knows about this resource, but I just found it. Its a list of the hidden “security” memos being demanded now by the ACLU, and it’s sortable by date, author, title, area of pertinence, etc.

    It’s almost as good as one of EW’s timelines.

  15. prostratedragon says:

    Right out there with the economic adiabatics we heard earlier in the week about spending on projects in the arts —”But you can’t get any stimulus from that!”

    The sight of Republicans out in force, eyes fixed purposefully on the horizon, linking arms as they sing “We Shall Not Be Stimuled” has been stirring.

  16. bobschacht says:

    emptywheel January 28th, 2009 at 12:30 pm 27
    In response to WilliamOckham @ 22 (show text)

    Gonna post on it momentarily.

    Well, for more than 4 hours now, the crowd has been milling around, expectantly, twiddling our thumbs and waiting for EW to come in out of the weeds and explain to us about the Missing Memos referenced by WO. I keep coming back to sneak a peak, but nada so far.

    (whistles innocently as he goes back to work)

    Bob in HI

  19. newtonusr says:

    Chuck Grassley was all up in both Gonzales’ and Mukasey’s faces in the last two years about protection for whistle-blowers, and particularly wrt to Iraq contractor schemes and the false claims act. It was actually kind of brutal. Perhaps he can be persuaded to…

  20. Dismayed says:

    By the way. Getting the whistleblower protection through is a good trade for dropping the birth control funding.

    We get the whistles whistling, get a few goopers in the sling, and then we get the birth control thing done on the flip side. I’d say, the BC thing might have even been put in there as bait.

    Trust the Obama. He has a plan.

  22. freepatriot says:

    O/T, but enough to make you toss yer cookies

    Kristof wants a cover-up commission (I ain’t linkin to that pussbucket)

    The first step is to appoint a high-level commission — perhaps a McCain-Scowcroft Commission? — to investigate torture, secret detention and wiretapping during the Bush years,

    snip

    It could be co-chaired by Brent Scowcroft and John McCain, with its conclusions written by Philip Zelikow, a former aide to Condoleezza Rice who wrote the best-selling report of the 9/11 commission.

    let’s get the bushbot who covered up george’s incompetence on 9-11 to cover up george’s crimes against humanity

    and what exactly was the reference to “Best selling” all about ???

    does kristof think we’re stupid ???

    or does he have a below average IQ ???

    how did the warren commission do on the NY Times best seller list ???

  23. QuickSilver says:

    With so many CIA and intelligence-related fronts, it’s a Pandora’s Box of corruption, don’t you think?

  24. plunger says:

    Russ Feingold’s appearance on Rachael last night was intended to put to rest the claim that Kit Bond and Eric Holder entered into a verbal agreement amounting to a quid pro quo, whereby Bond would agree to nominate Holder in return for Holder’s promise not to prosecute Bush Administration Officials for war crimes related to torture authorizations. Rather than put the matter to rest, Feingold’s contentions raised disturbing questions.

    Feingold said that his office received a denial from Holder’s office. He specifically did NOT say the conversation never occurred. He went on to say that (paraphrasing from memory):

    “Holder’s office denied that Holder ever provided Bond with such assurances, and in any event, Senator Bond should not rely on any such assurance when casting his vote.”

    This is the language of contract law. Use of the words assurance and reliance are intentional. What we are faced with now is a swearing contest, where a matter of national security level significance (the sanctity of the Office Of Attorney General) is at stake.

    Put them both under oath before the confirmation committee and make them swear to the truth of their private conversations. In the event of conflicting stories, submit both to a polygraph test.

    The future of justice in the United states is at stake here, as “reliance” is something the citizens should enjoy with respect to the office of Attorney General – to prosecute ALL crimes where the evidence warrants it.

    • bmaz says:

      And I think you have hit on the key here. Was it an absolute quid pro quo hard agreement of no prosecutions for a confirmation vote, no it was not. Was there a sufficient understanding reached that Holder had no desire whatsoever to prosecute, you can bet on it. Was it an illegal obstruction, no, but the point was conveyed. Result is effectively the same absent something earth shattering. We have already seen earth shattering stuff though and that hasn’t been a good enough basis to get the Obama team motivated to even discuss accountability actions. The nation is now almost innoculated to the filth of the Bushies, it is hard to see how more incremental evidence, which will surely keep coming out, will be the sufficient moment to make Obama and his team change their minds.

      • plunger says:

        The Barbarians At The Gate with their torches and pitchforks might get his attention. The American people are FED UP to an extent greater than any “inoculation” can overcome…and their angry grows exponentially, daily.

        The rule of law is is the last straw. It is not going down without a significant demonstration of our distaste for their brand of “justice” by we the people.

  25. BayStateLibrul says:

    OT
    Tweety Bird needs to fire his program directors.
    Hardnuts is beginning to suck again with Issa, Armey, and sundry nut cases.

  26. wavpeac says:

    Obama’s worst concession in the stimulus bill was not on birth control as far as I am concerned. He had a provision in it, that once again the dems wanted in, that would give the judges in bankruptcy cases the ability to restructure those toxic mortgages. During the Bush administration, mortgages were set aside early in Bush’s presidency so that they could not be changed during a chapter 13 bankruptcy. I have had to argue about this with people who have tried to tell me that the judge CAN do this. I tell you congress keeps trying to get this passed but every single time, this 83 million dollar lobby has been able to get it cut from the bill. This is the third time that this “lobby” has successfully gotten it removed from a bill. Bush changed the bankruptcy laws on mortgages early in his first 4 years. And since then the mortgages cannot be restructured. The judges know what is going on, but their hands are tied. I have been confronted by this in my case. The judge according to every lawyer I have talked to, can do nothing. All I can do is sue to have them account for every dollar they say I owe and prove it. But I have been told that the judge cannot remove or get rid of the fees.

    Why do they have so much power? Why did obama concede on this? Why are we focusing on birth control when THIS hides the real truth about these loans. In my view until this provision is included in a bill somewhere, homeowners are out of luck. The way things stand the bankruptcy judge can do nothing to restructure these loans that have horrible fees, horrible interest rates, and in some cases out right accounting fraud.

    Why are they fighting it so, so hard…if there is nothing of importance here? I think it’s because it hides the fraud. Until judges can change it, Americans will quietly lose their homes. Too busy trying to survive, no laws to protect them, and no meaningful way to fight back. Why do the dems keep caving on this when this is the best way to save these loans. I can make a normal payment, but I can’t make a 1500.00$ a month payment on a 121,000.00$ dollar loan. It makes sense to save these loans, keep people in the houses. These companies are not really collecting on this money, because the homes are going up for sale. So why are they fighting for these crazy fees, why do they fight the judges right to restructure the loans? There is a reason. Because these companies committed fraud AND were also in the business, continue to be, of buying up these homes.

    • plunger says:

      The bankers (bag holders on mortgage workouts) are the very people who install THEIR representatives into Congress, under the guise that they somehow represent US. Clearly, they don’t.

      When something makes no sense, go straight to what makes the most sense.

      Bankers rule America.

  27. BillE says:

    Joe Biden – formerly know as Senator MBNA/Banhk One/Chase/Citi etc.

    Actually one of the biggest problems is the tranch holders of the Mortgage Backed Securities are all sort of entities including foreign goverments/banks the contracts involved are also under the question of foreign releations. If you didn’t notice but Putin and the Chinese honcho called out the US for being bad guys in this mess at Davos. The want to have more than one reserve currency for world exchange. Mostly just to take us down. If successful the dollar will suddenly become worth about 10 cents and we would be importing oil at the new exchange rate of around 400 bucks a barrel, which would kill what’s left of the world export to the US economy. So, in short the govt has to trade peoples lives for the general good not the best solution but if oil trades against the Euro instead of the dollar watch out everybody.

  28. ThingsComeUndone says:

    We can save money by exposing government corruption and Pork! How is John McCain voting on this?

    • kspena says:

      Thanks, JT. My TV cable service is OUT today so I’m watching on the link you provided. Just went into recess for 10 min following summation.

  31. freepatriot says:

    Jebus, how can anybody say anything bad about that good samaritan governor of Illinois

    he saves old people, puppies and kittens on a regular basis

    he feed the hungry, he comforts the poor

    he’s been criticized for not being

    and on top of that, he is able to nail himself to the cross without any help corrupt

  32. JTMinIA says:

    It’s really too bad Blago doesn’t have a dog named Checkers. It would have fit in with the rest of his “defense” very well.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      Blago: My dog is named “King” after Martin Luther King whom I met as I was leading a march to Selma.

      Boxturtle (The people will easier fall victim to a big lie than a small one)

  33. freepatriot says:

    blagoff says he’s like you an me

    I don’t know about you

    but if he’s like me …

    well, he ain’t like me

    I’m smart enough to assert my 5th Amendment right

    blagoff had the right to remain silent, he just lacked the ability

    I say Impeach that fucker so I never have to listen to him again

  36. plunger says:

    woah…worst new home sales numbers ever:

    http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/2…..2009012911

    Lawmakers think the answer is for us all to buy a new car (thereby depreciating the value of our existing used cars by yet another 25%):

    http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/2…..2009012912

    Taxpayer subsidized deflation of their most valuable assets – who’da thunk?

    Time to stock up on cash, food and ammo. They’re stealing EVERYTHING.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      I think he did. Never, EVER, try to rush EW. Perhaps if Bob groveled a bit, we’d get the next post.

      Boxturtle (Or EW could be camping in Whitehouse’s office)

    • JTMinIA says:

      Actually, checking for new posts has a variable interval schedule of reinforcement (from the behaviorist point of view). VI schedules cause some of the highest rates of unreinforced behavior, which would translate to “wasting” time checking for a new post that isn’t there. Even more, VI schedules have the largest drop-off in behavior after reinforcement is given. Thus, right now, many of us are checking more often than usual and, if and when a new post finally appears, we will stop checking for a while.

      In short, from a technical perspective, the lack of a new post is actually lowering our productivity.

      As to GDP, I cannot say. I’m an academic. I don’t contribute to GDP.

  40. randiego says:

    Man, did watching the Republicans act like little children all over the TeeVee last night make for some good eatin’ or what?

    I’m also bettin’ that Repub congressman from Illinois will think twice about coming back on to Rachel’s show…

    • plunger says:

      Actually he argued directly against his own point. He insisted that the best idea was to hand out vouchers good for 25% off on new Chryslers, while contending it to be the highest use of money to “put people back to work” – presumably making cars and parts.

      While he railed against use of funds put to other employment-inducing uses, he failed to miss (as did Rachael) the point that selling a few more cars at this point might only serve to keep existing employees employed, while not creating any new jobs.

      Look, here’s the deal. We’re in a Depression, with a capital D, and there is no fix other than to let the damn thing crash and hit reset. All discussion to the contrary is premised on wishful thinking and a belief that the laws of gravity can be overcome by human tinkering.

      nah ganna happin!

      • randiego says:

        Er, ah um yeah.

        Back to my point. After the last 8 years, I am enjoying watching Obama play poker with these knuckleheads. I am amazed that they haven’t learned any lessons from ‘06 and ‘08, and I’m really having a good time watching them fail.

        Tempered of course by the fact that things are completely effed and people are suffering from it.

        It feels good to win, and it’s good to see upside-downism on the run.

        Rachel had that dude absolutely sputtering. He didn’t expect to be asked real questions and challenged on his statements and assumptions.