top | item 28015033

(no title)

libertyhouse | 4 years ago

It's likely that the sentence wouldn't have been as harsh had there been evidence that he tried official channels first.

discuss

order

harry8|4 years ago

There is a mountain of evidence of official channels being tried by government whistleblowers with evidence of crimes committed where they were subject to the grossest retribution.

I frankly quite flatly don't believe the judge. The very fact that we know about so many of these crimes, which to my knowledge, none have been prosecuted shines the light of truth on this claim.

DubiousPusher|4 years ago

Judges have a very strong institution bias because they are by and large products of the insitutions. You climb high in legal circles by generally expressing a fairly high level of belief in cops, courts and the like.

And sometimes, to call something like official whistleblowing channels the nonsense that they are, you imoly something very damaging about the whole system. I think it's too much to chew. And it's much easier to profess belief.

pope_meat|4 years ago

If he'd gone through the official channels first, he wouldn't have gotten the chance to do it another way when inevitably official channels did nothing.

They'll ruin your life either way, at least this way the info makes a splash.

libertyhouse|4 years ago

You mean he wasn't capable of gaming out the consequences of the Government reacting poorly to the use of official whistleblower mechanisms and wouldn't therefore be able to go to the press in the manner in which he did?