Should the Whistleblower be compelled to name source? (accuse, suspect, government)

[PedroMartinez]

The Whistleblower was only going by secondhand information that turns out to be false. I don't blame the Whistleblower, because he/ she did the right thing.

Since the transcript shows that information was false, I believe the person who communicated privileged executive information should be identified and held responsible.

[James Bond 007]

I suspect when the whistleblower goes public we'll find out from him/her who some of those sources are anyway.

[mirage98de]

Yes, I am sick and tired of hoax after hoax based on an “Anonymous Source”

[antinimby]

Absolutely. You can't throw a whistleblow report out there without plentiful substantiation.

[travis t]

I voted yes. One of our bedrock principles is the right to confront an accuser.

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

I suspect when the whistleblower goes public we'll find out from him/her who some of those sources are anyway.

The whistleblower may never go public.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

The whistleblower may never go public.

The government knows the identity.

[redwood66]

The ones who provided the information need to stand up and be counted.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

The Whistleblower was only going by secondhand information that turns out to be false. I don't blame the Whistleblower, because he/ she did the right thing.

Since the transcript shows that information was false, I believe the person who communicated privileged executive information should be identified and held responsible.

Your evaluation of what's true and what's false needs a little brushing up.

Just a brief reminder.

[Northman83]

Everything Whistleblower has said, has turned out to be true. Trump and Guilianni said it on tv.. and their transcripts shows it!!