Graham: Impeachment 'dead on arrival' in Senate if House bars 'whistleblower' testimony (John Kerry, unemployed)
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.
There’s no such thing as a right to confront a whistleblower. That’s unprecedented. The idea of confronting a whistleblower is absurd on its face.
The whistleblower is irrelevant at this point. His or her story has already checked out.
The rights and protections contained in the US Constitution trump any "rights" contained in any laws passed by the legislature, including any "Whistleblower" laws. To the extent that there is any conflict between the two - and contrary to your post, there actually isn't in this case - the law would be unconstitutional.
In fact, the "Whistleblower" law does not protect the identity of the "Whistleblower," nor does it protect anyone from having to testify about their allegations in a court of law. If you think that it does, please feel free to post the part of the law that provides those protections. You will not be able to, because no such protections exist in the law.
I suggest you write a letter to AG Barr and tell him about this as he seems unaware.
At any rate at this point it matters not one wit how the House became aware of Trump's crimes. All that matters is that there was a crime and they have the evidence to impeach and the evidence does not need or include testimony from the whistle blower.
Because you, and Adam Schiff and Rachel Maddow, etc. say so.
LOL. I hate to be the one to have to break it to you people, but that is not how this works, nor is it how it should work, either.
The rights and protections contained in the US Constitution trump any "rights" contained in any laws passed by the legislature, including any "Whistleblower" laws. To the extent that there is any conflict between the two - and contrary to your post, there actually isn't in this case - the law would be unconstitutional.
In fact, the "Whistleblower" law does not protect the identity of the "Whistleblower," nor does it protect anyone from having to testify about their allegations in a court of law. If you think that it does, please feel free to post the part of the law that provides those protections. You will not be able to, because no such protections exist in the law.
Are you even the least bit interested in people being willing to step forward and speak out about corrupt government practices without being targeted for reprisals?
I’ll answer this for you: yes you are. You’re VERY interested in it, and you believe strongly in whistleblower protections. You fully understand the principles of protecting the identity of whistleblowers and you think that exposing such a person is basically criminal and antithetical to our values as a nation.
Of course, all of the aforementioned comes with a huge caveat: you believe in these things as long as a whistleblower isn’t ratting out your guy. If he or she is dropping dimes on Obama, Hillary or Biden, then you’re a hardcore supporter of whistleblower rights...the same rights that you so easily dismiss now.
I remember what a hero Linda Tripp was to your right wingers back in the day. The idea of Bill Clinton confronting her would’ve been preposterous at the time. You guys love your snitches, and you protect them at all costs...as long as they’re useful. When Tripp lost her usefulness, the right dumped her like a sack of garbage.
In any case, the Trump whistleblower has been proved completely correct. There’s no need to confront or allow the whistleblower to be confronted. Trump just needs to tell us why he tried to barter aid in exchange for investigations against his rival.
Are you even the least bit interested in people being willing to step forward and speak out about corrupt government practices without being targeted for reprisals?
I’ll answer this for you: yes you are. You’re VERY interested in it, and you believe strongly in whistleblower protections. You fully understand the principles of protecting the identity of whistleblowers and you think that exposing such a person is basically criminal and antithetical to our values as a nation.
Of course, all of the aforementioned comes with a huge caveat: you believe in these things as long as a whistleblower isn’t ratting out your guy. If he or she is dropping dimes on Obama, Hillary or Biden, then you’re a hardcore supporter of whistleblower rights...the same rights that you so easily dismiss now.
I remember what a hero Linda Tripp was to your right wingers back in the day. The idea of Bill Clinton confronting her would’ve been preposterous at the time. You guys love your snitches, and you protect them at all costs...as long as they’re useful. When Tripp lost her usefulness, the right dumped her like a sack of garbage.
In any case, the Trump whistleblower has been proved completely correct. There’s no need to confront or allow the whistleblower to be confronted. Trump just needs to tell us why he tried to barter aid in exchange for investigations against his rival.
There is no "protection" for identity of government "Whistleblowers". That is not a thing. It is an idea that your people made up for this situation.
Again, if you can show where any such protection actually exists in the law, please provide that. But you will not be able to, because no such protection exists. It does not now and it never has.
Your people are lying to you and the American people and the world about this, yet again.
Again, this whole thing is the Mueller report redux. Just another Left Wing Loony Toon wet dream. The real whistle blower is President Trump, who was trying to get to the bottom of the Biden family corruption.
I am glad you brought this up because it illustrates exactly why we have a whistle blower law. While federal employees do not make policy they are very aware of the laws of the USA and are obligated to report if the laws are not being followed. So they can call 911, so to speak, by blowing a whistle if they see possible criminal activity. Just like 911, someone will look into whether a law has actually been broken. And that is what happened. The WB is not making policy but he/she is telling those in power that there is something they should look into. If there is nothing amiss, the WB notice will be dismissed. But in this case, there was a big stinking pile of dog poo that needed a lot of further investigation because for one thing, Trump and Mulvaney both admitted to it.
The problem with your response is that the issue of criminality isn’t part of the equation. If that were the case, it should have been handled by Law Enforcement and the Judicial Branch. This IS a case where the policies of the POTUS were being questioned , and once the report was brought to a known liar, the line started forming for others to state their opinion. Pro Ukraine, anti POTUS appears to be a common thread.
The Dems and the media stressed over and over again that this event was all about
“Personal political gain” for POTUS. In fact , at the very beginning it was made clear that there weren’t any Laws broken. None. As a matter of record, the exact reason for Impeachment appears to be a series of connect the dots only where you are told and ignore others that Dems don’t want recognized.That along with a follow the bouncing ball word salad. Adam’s experienced with that, having bounced everyone around for over two years claiming “ evidence in plain sight” that no one else was able to see.
What would Hunter know about interactions Trump and his administration have had with the government of Ukraine?
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.
