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

[Nakosis]

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

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

Little different case. In this case, IMO the transcript is the accuser.

The congress should have access to any document in its duty of oversight, security clearance should be an obstacle normally. Unfortunately, congress can't seem to keep itself from leaking confidential information, so they are shooting themselves in the foot. Members of congress should be criminally charges if any confidential information in their possession gets leak. Until congress can stop the leaks, it is hard to trust them with any information.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Are you aware that there is a strict process that was followed for the whistleblowing to even happen in the first place?

We are not talking about garden variety rumor mill here.

 

[metis]

My answer to the OP is "yes", and (s)he clearly seems to think so which is undoubtedly why they haven't surfaced.

And the fact that now Trump has said there's likely be "civil war" if he's removed adds even more irons to the threat. I never thought I'd ever see the day when a sitting president would talk as such.

 

[LuisDantas]

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 would say that this particular ship has sailed quite decisively already.

Trump has not only been caught red-handed, he has invited all the city to watch him apply the red paint himself.

At this point the issue ahead of us all is how serious the consequences will be, no longer whether he did anything worth of punishment.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

If "antifa" represent dems, then "Proud Boys" represent reps. And if the criteria is that it has to benefit to Trump, how are antifa's stupid hyjinks beneficial to any democrat?

 

[columbus]

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

You must have pretty serious Trump Derangement Syndrome if you can't distinguish between some ex-politicians who will not hold office again and the current president.
I don't suffer from that.
Tom

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

Nope. It's easy: The Clintons were from Arkansas, and were reasonable intelligent. Ms Clinton the smarter of the two by far.

Whereas tЯump is from a swamp (when someone accidentally kicked over a rotten stump) and has no detectable brain activity of any worth.

There is no comparison: Ms Clinton speaks in complete sentences, and uses 8th grade English or higher.

Whereas, tЯump speaks in incomplete sentences, and "speaks" at a 3rd grade English or lower, seldom going over one syllable words.

More: According to Politifact? Clinton was roughly 70% truthful or better. But tЯump is about 90% falsehood or worse.

Even more: When Bill was president? He often garnered better than 50% approval. But tЯump has never gone higher than 38%, and is usually worse (in fact, holds the record for the lowest rate in modern history).

Even more: Clinton (either one) garnered the respect of the rest of the World Leaders-- those that are not Dictators and Monsters, that is.

But tЯump is a literal laughingstock among ALL world leaders, including Dictators he admires so much.

Worse: If Bill had done 1/10th of the things tЯump has done? HE WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT AND SUMMARILY SHOT BY RETHUGLICANS.

There is no sane comparison.

 

[BSM1]

You must have pretty serious Trump Derangement Syndrome if you can't distinguish between some ex-politicians who will not hold office again and the current president.
I don't suffer from that.
Tom

Try the ratio of Clinton detractors/accusers who have been found dead compared to those that have accused Trump over the last few years. Do we see a pattern?

 

[columbus]

Try the ratio of Clinton detractors/accusers who have been found dead compared to those that have accused Trump over the last few years. Do we see a pattern?

I don't really think about the Clintons any more.
I don't need to prop up my politics by referring to things that they are accused of doing.
I don't suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Tom

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Try the ratio of Clinton detractors/accusers who have been found dead compared to those that have accused Trump over the last few years. Do we see a pattern?

Seriously? If you think Clinton utilized capable assassins like you claim?

How on EARTH is Monika Lewensky still alive?

Or old Bernie Sanders-- who did more harm to Clinton than the Repugs did?

Or? How on EARTH is The Donald still breathing, if Clinton was All That?

A mighty selective "assassin" ... and the FBI? Is the most incompetent bunch of do-nothings in all history-- if your claims had the slightest merit.

 

[Stanyon]

And the fact that now Trump has said there's likely be "civil war"

That isn't exactly what he said now is it?

 

[columbus]

That isn't exactly what he said now is it?

Trump is the most accomplished liar in recent USA political history.

What he said, "exactly", doesn't matter any more now than it did when he was going to release his tax returns before the election or get Mexico to pay for the Wall or Repeal and Replace ACA.

Let's not even go into what he promised his assorted wives and hookers and girlfriends....
Tom

 

[Shad]

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 would divide this between public and legal spheres. In the legal sphere the name thus person will become, if not already, known. It is not only the law but as you point out part of the constitution. The public sphere and thus citizens not involved will find out later unless the hearings are classified. The name will probably be withheld until a hearing takes place in my view

Danger can come from government and/or the public. Hence witness protection programs.

 

[wellwisher]

Are you aware that there is a strict process that was followed for the whistleblowing to even happen in the first place?

We are not talking about garden variety rumor mill here.

Are you aware that the Democrats changed the whistle blower procedures from first hand information, to second hand information, just before they leak this to the press? The criminals are getting very sloppy. They should have planned the change in procedures, more in advance, but they never thought it would come to plan E. They had no time to make it look innocent.

Normally, it would be better for a genuine whistle blower, at this level, to become public, since this gives them public visibility and thereby make it harder to take them out in the shadows. However, since this is a scam, being public could back fire on the Democrats, if he was subjected to public scrutiny. Also, the Democrats, in desperation, may decide to take him/her out, and use fake news to try to frame Trump with their hit man crime.

The Democrats committed many crimes before, during, and after the 2016 election. They are desperately trying to intimidate people by showing the extent of their treachery. Most Republican leaders are keeping some distance, since fake news will try to drag them into the swamp.

Luckily,Trump and Barr are not intimidated and are continuing to pursue the criminals in the background. For example, the State Department is taking another look at Hillary's e-mails. They are interviewing former employees of the state Department who interacted with Hillary. They are finding classified intel that has been mislabeled before being sent to her server. This is serious.

The Clintons has a major role in this treachery since they have a lot to lose if their pay to play crimes are made public. Trump promised to drain the swamp and this is how the swamp critter behave as the water level drops and they become fearful of exposure.

Impeachment is all theater designed to hog the spot light in the media. The goal is to have an excuse for fake news not to cover the Barr investigation and to hopefully spin this investigation as a distraction by Trump to save his own skin. However, this will backfire since the impeachment will become obstruction of justice with even more swamp members exposed and vulnerable.

 

[LuisDantas]

What passes for oposition to Democrats these days is fascinating. Hardly respectable or convincing, but fascinating nonetheless.

 

[metis]

Are you aware that the Democrats changed the whistle blower procedures from first hand information, to second hand information, just before they leak this to the press?

You got that from Fox, right? Try looking this up from less slanted sources because it simply isn't true.

And always remember the Fox is owned by Murdock, who is a friend of Trump, and Murdock even stated at its inception that Fox would reflect "conservative values".

 

[metis]

The Clintons has a major role in this treachery since they have a lot to lose if their pay to play crimes are made public.

Assuming guilt is unAmerican per the Constitution. Also, what "crimes" did the Dems supposedly commit after the 2016 election? Maybe list them?

And what about Trump's crimes, such as having to pay fines for illegal use of campaign funds and his Trump University fiasco where he was also fined. What about the many lawsuits he lost for refusing to pay subcontractors? And what about his constant barrage of lies when he speaks publicly? How are these and many more compatible with even the most basic Catholic values?

Here's what the Church has long called the "Seven Deadly Sins":

pride

greed

lust

envy

gluttony

wrath

and sloth

So, how does Trump stack up to these?

 

[shmogie]

If "antifa" represent dems, then "Proud Boys" represent reps. And if the criteria is that it has to benefit to Trump, how are antifa's stupid hyjinks beneficial to any democrat?

I don´t know who the proud boys are, Could you please give me some information ?

As to ANTIFA, if your motto is, the end justifies means, then they provide a valuable service. Keep your opponents thoughts and ideas from being disseminated.

A campus has a liberal speaker, the university PD assigns one officer for security. A Conservative speaker is proposed and the campus has to assign all itś officers, and call in the Sheriffs Dept. and Highway patrol. Stuff gets damaged, the university has to foot the bill.

Result ? Conservative speakers aren´t invited, or turn down invitations, because of intimidation, threats to their family, etc., etc.,

Portland Oregon, an extremely liberal city, allows ANTIFA to run wild, and caves to their demands more often than not.

I am sure you recall the Conservative journalist who meets the liberal criteria for being tolerant to, a minority, Asian, and a homosexual. Yet he is a Conservative and writes stuff ANTIFA doesn´t like.

The Portland police watched as ANTIFA beat the hell out of this guy, on a public street, not the first time. If
he keeps reporting on them, they will probably kill him.

This is in Alinsky´s rules for radicals, though I forget the number, intimidate the enemy any way possible, and shut him up. Democrats like the idea of Conservatives being limited in speech.

If a guy gets caught up in ANTIFA´s stuff and they start beating on him because he LOOKS like a Conservative, and he happens to have a concealed carry permit, and drops two or three of them, itś all good. Even if the shooting is justified and legal, the democrats will twist it to the point that it helps with another coveted action, reduction of gun rights.

ANTIFA is a democrat asset, make no mistake about it.

 

[Ouroboros]

You got that from Fox, right? Try looking this up from less slanted sources because it simply isn't true.

And always remember the Fox is owned by Murdock, who is a friend of Trump, and Murdock even stated at its inception that Fox would reflect "conservative values".

Rupert "Goebbles" Murdock. Trump's propaganda minister of alternative truth through Faux Network.

 

[shmogie]

Little different case. In this case, IMO the transcript is the accuser.

The congress should have access to any document in its duty of oversight, security clearance should be an obstacle normally. Unfortunately, congress can't seem to keep itself from leaking confidential information, so they are shooting themselves in the foot. Members of congress should be criminally charges if any confidential information in their possession gets leak. Until congress can stop the leaks, it is hard to trust them with any information.

Remember, each branch of the government has certain rights and privileges.

Oversight by Congress cannot void the sanctity of privileged communications between lawyer and client, and claims of executive privilege cannot be invalidated without adjudication in court.

I would like to know why a document of total hearsay constitutes something of any legal standing.

I know an FBI agent that told me some bad stuff about the agency, I complain about what I heard, am I know a legal whistleblower ?