There is corruption and then there is over the top corruption
Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz shared the FBI's position that the three former and suspended agents testifying at Thursday's "Weaponization of Government" committee hearing are not real whistleblowers during a tense exchange with committee chairman GOP Rep. Jim Jordan.
She asked Jordan: "These are not whistleblowers. They've been determined by the agency [FBI] not to be whistleblowers. Are you deciding that they are whistleblowers?"
"Yes," Jordan replied. "The law decides, did you not listen to Mr. Levitt's testimony?"
Whistleblower laws are there to protect people from retaliation when they want to come forward with information about corruptions (etc....) regarding their own employment. While it is not unusual to suggest that a whistleblower might be bringing forward information that is incorrect or otherwise out of context, we have never seen a company or agency demand that the person coming forward does not qualify for protection?
Think about it... if the company or agency in question had basic veto rights over whether someone is or is not entitled to protection, why on earth would they ever allow someone to do so? The more incriminating the evidence is the more likely they are to shut it down. If a person coming forward understood that their protection is not guaranteed unless the very people they mean to expose are willing to "allow" it... who would ever come forward?
The entire concept of a whistleblower is that they go to a third party and are granted protection by the third party from retribution by whomever they are whistleblowing on. There is nothing in the law that allows for a review of the company or agency in question to veto the idea of someone whistleblowing against them. The fact that Democrats are this invested in protecting the FBI is astounding.
The FBI thinks they are above the law
And democrats agree