POLL: Is It Logical To Think The Trump Whistleblower Would be in Danger if Their Identity is Known?

[Ouroboros]

Hopefully they would first interview the accuser thoroughly before any rash decisions were made.

Another point to make is that a whistle-blower isn't really an accuser. However wrote it did so to instigate an investigation into the truth of the matter. It wasn't "He did this!" But rather, "I have information that points to that he might have done this. Please check." Accusers are usually the victims of some direct harm to them. The whistle-blower is more like the neighbor calling in a shooting they heard and want the police to come and check it out. They're more like a witness than accuser.

 

[Nakosis]

Of the more questionable things I've heard from this recent situation was the idea that they need to protect the identity of the whistleblower to protect them from possible danger. Does anyone really think that such a high profile individual would actually be in danger of anything? I'd say it's logical to assume that this individual and Trump's actions would be under such a fine microscope that the whistleblower would basically be untouchable.

I can only imagine the conspiracy theories if something did happen to this person like what happened to Seth Rich.

Please vote and comment in the pole


"Right to confront witness

Primary tabs

Overview

The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action. This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 43). As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.
Constitutional Basis and Purpose

The Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The Clause was intended to prevent the conviction of a defendant upon written evidence (such as depositions or ex parte affidavits) without that defendant having an opportunity to face his or her accusers and to put their honesty and truthfulness to test before the jury.
In Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895), the Supreme Court enunciated the three fundamental purposes that the Confrontation Clause was meant to serve:

1. 
   
   
   • To ensure that witnesses would testify under oath and understand the serious nature of the trial process;
   • To allow the accused to cross-examine witnesses who testify against him; and
   • To allow jurors to assess the credibility of a witness by observing that witness’s behavior."

Right to confront witness | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Considering the only evidence is the transcript, this is all that is needed to pass judgement on.

The whistleblower pointed out the evidence. The whistleblower is not a witness, has nothing to add and is not important at this point.

The transcript is available, what else is needed? Trump admitted to it. The Ukrainian president also admitted to the conversation. So either the transcript shows a crime has been committed or it doesn't.

No need to make a circus out of it.

 

[Terry Sampson]

If the accusations made turn out to be false or politically motivated they would deserve to be fired and should be made to regret it professionally.

I agree 100%. BUT (there's always a "but") ... as a former federal employee AND a union steward in the U.S. Internal Revenue Service who has personally been involved in cases and seen IRS managers do or try to do some really crazy sh**, I'm just sayin' ... even if all of the whistleblower's "i"s are dotted and "t"s are crossed, his/her spouse and kids (if he or she has any) are going be saying: "what the hell were you thinking, you idiot")

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

To the OP: Considering how off the rails Der Trump'o'lini has been previously? Wherein he literally called out to Russia to interfere with our elections on National TV?

And he literally called out for someone to beat the crap outta someone he did not like, again on National TV?

And he literally bragged about how he could assault women with impunity?

And he bragged about being able to shoot a random person on any street, and not have any consequences, on National TV?

Yeah... if Her Drumpf knew the identity of the whistle-blower? We would see it on Twitter-- on endless repeat-- with an adjacent tweet asking for someone to murder the person.

This isn't difficult to figure out: The Liar In Chief has no filter, no self-control, and zero morals of any worth.

In fact, I'd not be surprised if tЯump has not already contacted his Russian Owners to send an assassin already...

 

[columbus]

Considering the only evidence is the transcript, this is all tat is needed to pass judgement on.

Not necessarily.

My understanding is that while the Trump administration was pressuring a foreign government to help him politically, Trump was also holding up payments that had already been agreed. If true, Trump was using the USA government to help him win the next election.
Tom

 

[Ouroboros]

So what about Guiliani? What official post does he have in the cabinet? He's Trump's personal lawyer and doing official state business and privy to state secrets. Was he given a top security clearance all of a sudden? Seems like he's more involved in state affairs than our veep!?!

 

[BSM1]

Of the more questionable things I've heard from this recent situation was the idea that they need to protect the identity of the whistleblower to protect them from possible danger. Does anyone really think that such a high profile individual would actually be in danger of anything? I'd say it's logical to assume that this individual and Trump's actions would be under such a fine microscope that the whistleblower would basically be untouchable.

I can only imagine the conspiracy theories if something did happen to this person like what happened to Seth Rich.

Please vote and comment in the pole


"Right to confront witness

Primary tabs

Overview

The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action. This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 43). As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.
Constitutional Basis and Purpose

The Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The Clause was intended to prevent the conviction of a defendant upon written evidence (such as depositions or ex parte affidavits) without that defendant having an opportunity to face his or her accusers and to put their honesty and truthfulness to test before the jury.
In Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895), the Supreme Court enunciated the three fundamental purposes that the Confrontation Clause was meant to serve:

1. 
   
   
   • To ensure that witnesses would testify under oath and understand the serious nature of the trial process;
   • To allow the accused to cross-examine witnesses who testify against him; and
   • To allow jurors to assess the credibility of a witness by observing that witness’s behavior."

Right to confront witness | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

I think you're confusing Trump with the Clintons.,..

 

[BSM1]

Not necessarily.

My understanding is that while the Trump administration was pressuring a foreign government to help him politically, Trump was also holding up payments that had already been agreed. If true, Trump was using the USA government to help him win the next election.
Tom

Made up by Adam Schiff (by his own admission, btw).

 

[columbus]

Made up by Adam Schiff (by his own admission, btw).

What was made up by Adam Schiff?
That Trump told a foreign government to investigate the family of a political rival?

Tom

 

[oldbadger]

................................
The whistleblower needs close protection and job protection.
Definitely, I reckon

 

[Nakosis]

So what about Guiliani? What official post does he have in the cabinet? He's Trump's personal lawyer and doing official state business and privy to state secrets. Was he given a top security clearance all of a sudden? Seems like he's more involved in state affairs than our veep!?!

Reached for comment just hours after the hearing concluded, Giuliani dodged several attempts about whether he had a security clearance. Instead, the former New York City mayor said in a text message that he was “never given classified info.”

After The Daily Beast asked again whether Giuliani has a security clearance, he again declined to answer.

“Doesn’t matter keep chasing irrelevant info,” Giuliani wrote in another text message.
Giuliani Won’t Say if He Has a Security Clearance

I would say this means no.

Seems like an oversight though since Trump can give anyone security clearance.

 

[Ouroboros]

Reached for comment just hours after the hearing concluded, Giuliani dodged several attempts about whether he had a security clearance. Instead, the former New York City mayor said in a text message that he was “never given classified info.”

He better be careful. The state department can now declare information secret retroactively, as in the case of Clinton employee's emails:

Current and former officials tell the Post that as many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by investigators at the State Department. Those targeted, including senior officials as well as others in lower-level jobs, have been notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now are potential security violations, according to letters reviewed by the Washington Post.

Washington Post: State Department steps up email probe of former Hillary Clinton aides - CNNPolitics

After The Daily Beast asked again whether Giuliani has a security clearance, he again declined to answer.

“Doesn’t matter keep chasing irrelevant info,” Giuliani wrote in another text message.
Giuliani Won’t Say if He Has a Security Clearance

I would say this means no.

Yeah. Probably he doesn't. Now, the highest clearances are secret in themselves so he can't divulge exactly what clearance he has, but he can say that he does have a clearance of sorts. His blank refusal to say anything probably means he has none. None at all. Not even the first level. LOL!

Seems like an oversight though since Trump can give anyone security clearance.

Very true. Since he can just hand them out as candy, why not just give him one? As I said before, Trump is an idiot. I don't think he's evil. He's just incompetent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We have anti-retaliation laws because it happens. And this high profile of an accusation, the family of the whistle blower must also be considered as well.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I voted Yes -- and think @columbus hit the nail on the head. The only thing I'd add is that being "so much in the limelight" isn't really much of a shield -- presidents have been assassinated, or attempts made on their lives, so limelight doesn't seem to offer the kind of protection suggested in the OP.

 

[columbus]

still being investigated but so many have already found him guilty of something, it is pure speculation to assume anyone is guilty before all the facts are in.
Agree or disagree?

Perhaps you'd explain this to @shmogie ?

He's still going on about servergate.
Tom

 

[Father Heathen]

Given that his supporters have demonstrated a cult-like devotion to him and complete disregard for ethics and logic - some even displaying a willingness to resort to crime and violence - I would say that it's not an unreasonable concern.

 

[shmogie]

Perhaps you'd explain this to @shmogie ?

He's still going on about servergate.
Tom

Huh ? That is still an open investigation and all the facts are not in.

However, all of the elements of criminal negligence defined by statute are present.

There was no prosecution then, and there won´t be now. The political elites, regardless of party, protect one another.

The political class has bankrupted the process. The Clintons went into the White House flat broke. When they came out they were multi millionaires, on their salaries.

I haven´t discussed this with anyone for months. So, you asked for it, you got it.

 

[columbus]

Huh ? That is still an open investigation and all the facts are not in.

Nonsense.
The investigations (more than one) found the same thing that the Mueller investigation found. Illegal activities that didn't merit prosecution.
Tom

 

[shmogie]

Given that his supporters have demonstrated a cult-like devotion to him and complete disregard for ethics and logic - some even displaying a willingness to resort to crime and violence - I would say that it's not an unreasonable concern.

Crimes and violence ? Like the democrat hit squad, ANTIFA ? Can you document your assertion of violence ?

Crimes - Please document the crimes where there has been an indictment and adjudication of a Trump supporter committing a crime for the benefit of Trump. There are some, probably around the same number for obama supporters.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Crimes and violence ? Like the democrat hit squad, ANTIFA ?

Are we discussing those groups?