Nope. He's out telling the press "I figured the campaign would handle it and that hasn't happened and here we are," -- his lawsuit only states that he "forewent alerting the authorities because putting Mr. Trump in the White House was his goal." None of what you write above is, or will be, part of the case.*
Nope? LOL.
Seems you missed a bit, because some of that is part of the case, like point 35 (could not tell anyone because of Phillip's reputation for violent outbursts and retaliation, and that he "could not trust his own supervisor"), point 36 (needed paychecks to support pregnant wife and two kids), 37 (fear of retribution again), and 40 (long time GOP operative) and I assume wanted to continue that, which might be threatened if he complained, or called the cops, and his supervisors didn't back him up).
And I wasn't predicting what would be part of the case but why he and many others might not call the cops in that situation - that was I thought made clear with this part you clipped, "Obviously
there are lots of reasons why people don't always call the cops, and being loyal to Trump is just one of them."
It is a fact that he has filed a lawsuit against the campaign. And yes, I implied that he's going this route because he's after some big money - explicitly calling this a theory.
It is not a fact that the campaign had enough information to fire this guy but failed to do so. This is not yet known. Yet, you're carrying on about how the Trump campaign should have fired him and their failure to do so is "of course the problem," yadda yadda yadda.
Do you really not see the difference?[/QUOTE]
It's also a "theory" based on the lawsuit that he went after the campaign because they failed in their basic duty and are liable.
But this is sort of pointless - obviously we don't know if ANYTHING happened. For all we know he made up the incident, the dates, the times, who he called, the others he alleges were threatened by the guy, several of whom he asserts alerted the campaign, several specific conversations, moving his family, the circumstances of his quitting, that the guy even has a gun, etc. all of which will be subject to cross examination, verification etc. If so the conversation is pointless.
Assuming any of it's true, the point I'm making is the problem if there is one simply is NOT whether or not he called the cops - there are lots of easily understandable reasons why not - he gives several in the document, and there are others. It's that any responsible employer would have pretty much immediately fired the guy on the spot or suspended him while an investigation takes place. There's no evidence any of that happened.