Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whistleblower's credibility concerning his second- and third-hand knowledge is not relevant when first-hand witnesses have already stepped forward to corroborate and confirm the contents of the whistleblower's report.
They have said that they share his opinion and the way he chose to spin things, but that's not really corroboration since we aren't talking about facts. Also, the fact that all the "whistleblower" had to go on was second and third hand information means that he's not really a whistleblower and not entitled to protection as one. The only reason to keep his identity secret is because of his lack of credibility.
Also, again, when the actual phone call is public, the opinions and spin of partisans isn't really valid "evidence" of anything no matter who they are.
Given that the whistleblower admittedly does not have firsthand knowledge as to what occurred, what is to be gained by evaluating his or her credibility?
It would seem to me that there is nothing to be gained by outing him, other than to invite retaliation in a manner designed to discourage future whistleblowers.
The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.
Its unavoidable, if this get to the Senate they will be calling him to testify and he can not refuse. Congresspersons, the media, and ordinary Joes are not bound by this statute.
The Senate would call him/her to testify about what? There are no claims of 1st hand knowledge regarding anything in the complaint. Called to testify about who told them about the things in the complaint? Those people aren't on trial.
The whistleblower's identity is completely irrelevant. There is evidence to back up the items in the complaint or there isn't. So far, it's appearing like the former.
The only reason they are trying to keep his identity a secret is because they know that he's not a credible witness and if his identity were public, no one would take him seriously aside from the most ridiculous of partisan hacks.
In the end it doesn't really matter though since the transcript of the phone call is public, nothing he has to say about the phone call matters since we can all see the contents for ourselves.
He or she is not a witness, full stop. Credible or otherwise.
He or she is not a witness, full stop. Credible or otherwise.
That's true too, he (we know who it is even if we are pretending that we don't know) has nothing of value to offer, he's merely a leaker that is being treated as a whistleblower for political purposes.
That's true too, he (we know who it is even if we are pretending that we don't know) has nothing of value to offer, he's merely a leaker that is being treated as a whistleblower for political purposes.
Its not a "leak" if the whistelblower reported it to the Inspector General. The whistelblower process is, in fact, intentionally set up to give people a place to turn to report wrongdoing without leaking. Except for the part where the now-rebuked Department of Justice initially tried to bury the information and prevent if from reaching the House Intelligence Committee as required by statute, the process worked as intended.
If you want to encourage leaks in the future, the best was to do it would be to undermine the whistle-blowing process by attacking the whistleblower and mucking up the system of oversight.
The Senate would call him/her to testify about what? There are no claims of 1st hand knowledge regarding anything in the complaint. Called to testify about who told them about the things in the complaint? Those people aren't on trial.
The whistleblower's identity is completely irrelevant. There is evidence to back up the items in the complaint or there isn't. So far, it's appearing like the former.
As has been repeatedly chanted on here, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. The origin of this whole charade, including the role of a particular Democratic Congressperson’s office, matters politically.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Its not a "leak" if the whistelblower reported it to the Inspector General. The whistelblower process is, in fact, intentionally set up to give people a place to turn to report wrongdoing without leaking. Except for the part where the now-rebuked Department of Justice initially tried to bury the information and prevent if from reaching the House Intelligence Committee as required by statute, the process worked as intended.
If you want to encourage leaks in the future, the best was to do it would be to undermine the whistle-blowing process by attacking the whistleblower and mucking up the system of oversight.
Well it is a leak, since he's not a valid whistleblower due to not having any firsthand information, a leak is the only alternative. He's framed as a whistleblower, but he's not actually one. In fact, his status as a habitual partisan leaker is the reason they want to keep his identity a secret.....that and the fact that he worked with Schiff to coordinate his leak and make it look like he was a whistleblower.
The whistleblower is supposed to be protected from retaliation, they may be protected from disclosure but there is no guarantee. Congress has every right to make this person testify. Clearly Schiff won’t allow the House to do it, but I am willing to bet money the Senate will if it makes it there. I am far more concerned about unelected government employees, particularly ones from the intelligence community, trying to oust an elected official.
Think of the whistleblower as a fire watcher in a fire tower. He spots smoke of a potential fire and he reports it to the appropriate authorities, who then go investigate the cause of that smoke. The fire watcher's job at that point is done. It's not his responsibility to determine if there is an actual fire, how big it is, who started it, or to go fight it himself. He did his job by reporting it. No one cares who the fire spotter voted for in the last election or what he might have posted on his Facebook page because it has nothing to do with him doing his job by spotting a fire.
I get that you want to out the whistleblower, but your reasons are really flimsy, especially since his report of smoke turned out to be an actual fire, as confirmed by people who were actually there on the ground when it started. How about we focus on the fire, and on the people who have knowledge of how and when it started, rather than on the guy who saw it and reported it? Can you truly not understand that he is inconsequential now?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
