Does Trump want Whistleblower Executed?

[danieldemol]

'At a private breakfast in New York, Trump likened the filing of a just released complaint to treason.

“I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy,” he said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”'

Source: Donald Trump Suggests Whoever Passed On Ukraine Call Information Should Be Executed

Questions
1: Do you think Trump is calling for the execution of the whistleblower?
2. Do you agree that people who are genuinely traitors (which need not necessarily include the whistlblower in this case) should be executed under circumstances where they could easily be subject to other treatment such as imprisonment?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Questions
1: Do you think Trump is calling for the execution of the whistleblower?

Depends. If the idea gets traction, then yes. If not, then he'll claim it was a joke... or that he never said it at all.

2. Do you agree that people who are genuinely traitors (which need not necessarily include the whistlblower in this case) should be executed under circumstances where they could easily be subject to other treatment such as imprisonment?

Sometimes.

I'm against the death penalty in general, but there's one range of cases where I make an exception: when the fact that a person is alive and in prison still poses a serious risk.

For instance, if a coup leader could be broken out of prison by their followers and launch a new coup, then it would make sense to execute the coup leader.

Or if a terrorist leader can still coordinate the actions of their group by communications smuggled out of the prison, then I think execution makes sense.

As a real-world example, I agreed with the execution of Saddam Hussein. As long as he was alive, there would have been no way to guard against his troops breaking him out of prison to try and put him back in power.

 

[Erebus]

Questions
1: Do you think Trump is calling for the execution of the whistleblower?
2. Do you agree that people who are genuinely traitors (which need not necessarily include the whistlblower in this case) should be executed under circumstances where they could easily be subject to other treatment such as imprisonment?

1. Yes I do. The implication seems very clear to me. However, I'll acknowledge that this is worded in a way that gives him an easy escape. Since he hasn't explicitly said he wants to have the person executed he could backtrack and claim he was really talking about imprisonment.

2. No. The thing about the death penalty is that you have to allow for two things:

Firstly, you accept that each death sentence is a gamble on potentially killing an innocent person. Even people who seemed 100% guilty have been proven innocent after their deaths. Others have simply had their obvious guilt become less certain as new evidence or unscrupulous behaviour of police/lawyers/coroners comes to light. In either case, it doesn't do a dead man much good.

Secondly, you grant lawmakers the right to decide who lives and who dies. That means putting your faith into people who may or may not have the public good at heart.

I can understand that the death penalty can be appealing for a number of reasons. However, I personally don't think that the risks involved are ultimately worth it.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

What is more interesting is that per the laws on whistleblowers, threatening them, as tRump has now publicly done, is not just an impeachable offense unto itself, but is a crime for which fines and prison time are the norm for a US citizen.
Soooooo.........

PS...it is too late to backtrack. He is openly guilty of this one (too).
If I did it (threatened in any way) with a whistleblower at my workplace, first I would be fired. Then, depending on what kind of threatening I did, I would have my day in criminal court.
This is in fact exactly why we have whistleblower laws. To hold the upper echelons accountable, particularly if one wants to be king.

 

[Stevicus]

'At a private breakfast in New York, Trump likened the filing of a just released complaint to treason.

“I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy,” he said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”'

Source: Donald Trump Suggests Whoever Passed On Ukraine Call Information Should Be Executed

Questions
1: Do you think Trump is calling for the execution of the whistleblower?
2. Do you agree that people who are genuinely traitors (which need not necessarily include the whistlblower in this case) should be executed under circumstances where they could easily be subject to other treatment such as imprisonment?

1. I'm not sure he's referring to the whistleblower. It sounds like he might be talking about whoever gave the whistleblower the information. Although I would wonder why those who had direct knowledge of it didn't come forward themselves, yet told the whistleblower.

2. I think it would depend on the circumstances. To me, I don't think it's even possible to actually be a "traitor" unless we're in an actual state of declared war where there is a clearly defined "enemy." If there is no declared war, then there is no enemy, and therefore, no possibility of treason.

 

[fantome profane]

1. He is not just talking about the whistleblower himself, but also about all those who gave information to the whistleblower. Those would be people in the White House staff. That means that there are likely multiple individuals working at the White House today who have just been threatened by the President with death.

Considering some of the acts of terrorism we have seen committed by Trump supporters this is very serious. And will likely have a chilling effect on people coming forward to testify. That is likely the point.

2. Let’s not confuse this issue with real actual treason.

 

[LuisDantas]

Questions
1: Do you think Trump is calling for the execution of the whistleblower?

Of course he is, in his typical deniability-rich style.

Among the very few things that he is skilled at, insinuating abhorrent ideas in order to push the envelope and harvest political support for obscenities is easily near the top.

He does not expect to reap enough support for the idea to fly, but it is a step in that general direction, and the results have been encouraging enough in the past. From his perspective, he has nothing to lose.

Goebbels would be proud of Trump.

2. Do you agree that people who are genuinely traitors (which need not necessarily include the whistlblower in this case) should be executed under circumstances where they could easily be subject to other treatment such as imprisonment?

The whistleblower is indeed hardly a traitor. But in any case, no, I would not and will not support capital punishment, and certainly not for purely political behavior even if it were reprehensible (which is definitely not the case for the whistleblower).

 

[BSM1]

It seems the "whistleblower" may have been a CIA plant. In that case, we are looking at something akin to treason.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems the "whistleblower" may have been a CIA plant. In that case, we are looking at something akin to treason.

From the perspective of someone who does not mind damaging the USA for personal gain, perhaps.

 

[Altfish]

It seems the "whistleblower" may have been a CIA plant. In that case, we are looking at something akin to treason.

But what the POTUS was allegedly doing was surely wrong and should have been exposed.

 

[ecco]

It sounds like he might be talking about whoever gave the whistleblower the information. Although I would wonder why those who had direct knowledge of it didn't come forward themselves, yet told the whistleblower.

Perhaps so they could remain part of the inner circle to "leak" other damaging information about POTUS.

 

[Ouroboros]

There's something called "Whistleblower Protection Act" from 1989. It's not treason what he did.

If the impeachment hearings starts, they might bring people in from that event and confirm if he made the threat.

 

[ecco]

It seems the "whistleblower" may have been a CIA plant. In that case, we are looking at something akin to treason.

You just can't resist playing the conspiracy card, can you?

But you should understand the circumstances before making nonsensical posts.

He wasn't "implanted" anywhere. He was given the information by one or more people who were aware of and concerned by the call.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's something called "Whistleblower Protection Act" from 1989. It's not treason what he did.

As Trump's comment shows, whistleblowers have been & still are subject
to threats & severe sanction. Without protection for them, a corrupt
government can easily get away with improper & even criminal behavior.
Interestingly, the Obama administration was one of the worst offenders.
Ref....
Obama's Crackdown on Whistleblowers

 

[Stevicus]

Perhaps so they could remain part of the inner circle to "leak" other damaging information about POTUS.

Possibly, although their testimony might still be needed for any impeachment hearings. But then again, in an administration where even the President has "leaked" himself, they may still be loyal to Trump, yet they're still braggarts and blabbermouths.

 

[Stevicus]

As Trump's comment shows, whistleblowers have been & still are subject
to threats & severe sanction. Without protection for them, a corrupt
government can easily get away with improper & even criminal behavior.
Interestingly, the Obama administration was one of the worst offenders.
Ref....
Obama's Crackdown on Whistleblowers

It's a tough spot to be in, since no one really wants to be a snitch. It's also a certain part of our culture that people generally dislike snitches, even if they're in the right.

Back when I was in school, the euphemism was "narced," as in "You narced on me!" (When I was even younger, we called them "tattlers.")

And then, with novels and movies like The Godfather coming out, the concept of omerta also became a part of certain sub-cultures.

 

[Ouroboros]

As Trump's comment shows, whistleblowers have been & still are subject
to threats & severe sanction. Without protection for them, a corrupt
government can easily get away with improper & even criminal behavior.
Interestingly, the Obama administration was one of the worst offenders.
Ref....
Obama's Crackdown on Whistleblowers

Our supreme leaders are all hypocrites and psychopaths. They claim to be so high-and-mighty and self-righteous. The swamp just gets bigger.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a tough spot to be in, since no one really wants to be a snitch. It's also a certain part of our culture that people generally dislike snitches, even if they're in the right.

Back when I was in school, the euphemism was "narced," as in "You narced on me!" (When I was even younger, we called them "tattlers.")

And then, with novels and movies like The Godfather coming out, the concept of omerta also became a part of certain sub-cultures.

When snitching on government, it's noble because
you're actually honoring the trust of worthy people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our supreme leaders are all hypocrites and psychopaths. They claim to be so high-and-mighty and self-righteous. The swamp just gets bigger.

The swamp always grows.

 

[fantome profane]

As Trump's comment shows, whistleblowers have been & still are subject
to threats & severe sanction. Without protection for them, a corrupt
government can easily get away with improper & even criminal behavior.
Interestingly, the Obama administration was one of the worst offenders.
Ref....
Obama's Crackdown on Whistleblowers

When snitching on government, it's noble because
you're actually honoring the trust of worthy people.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think I love you now.