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

[Stanyon]

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

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't really know. But given all that has happened in the past in politics, I think it's optimistic to think he wouldn't be in some form of peril.

 

[columbus]

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.

We're talking about a president who has pointed out that he could shoot someone and not lose support.
Has announced that he would pay the legal fees if someone used violence at a Trump rally. Has promised to protect federal employees who break the law while forcing the Wall down people's throats.

Yes, I think that the whistleblower is in serious danger from Trump and his supporters.
And s/he isn't necessary for the judicial proceedings, since the facts themselves are available.
Tom

 

[dybmh]

I voted yes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

It is obviously completely unfounded to believe that this individual is "basically untouchable". Not only would their identity being public knowledge produce a significant threat to them personally, but potentially an even greater and more damning effect to them professionally and personally.

The real question is what advantage is there in making the whistle blower's identity public. From where I sit, the only effect it would have is making this whole ordeal significantly more likely to negatively impact the individual before a thorough investigation can be conducted.

"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

Since there currently is no criminal prosecution taking place, this is all irrelevant.

It's doubly irrelevant considering this clause only applies if the witness is actually called to testify, and even if the witness testifies they can still have the right to testify anonymously in certain situations. The defendant is at no point necessarily entitled to know the name or other personal details of a witness.
SOURCE: Can I be anonymous when giving evidence as a witness? | Drupal

So, why did you quote it?

 

[MikeDwight]

What do you think this is? North Korea ? Trump's the best Eternal General we've ever seen though. you'll see.

 

[exchemist]

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

It is spelled "poll". A pole is something Boris Johnson's American "friend" had in her flat - before she became too fat to use it.

The whole idea of a whistleblower is that the identity of the person is NOT revealed, in order not to make people afraid to report misconduct. It should be obvious - to anyone who is not terminally thick - that revealing the identity of a whistleblower will deter anyone else from ever blowing any whistles.

The rules of trial evidence become relevant if and when there is a trial. The whistleblower sounds the alert so that there can be an investigation, during which evidence meeting the required legal standard can be gathered.

 

[Stanyon]

It is obviously completely unfounded to believe that this individual is "basically untouchable". Not only would their identity being public knowledge produce a significant threat to them personally, but potentially an even greater and more damning effect to them professionally and personally.

Who would be threatening to them? Trump couldn't touch them

Professionally and personally if the claims were all true and not second and third hand accusations he would be considered a hero for uncovering corruption and may very well get a prominent role somewhere, at the very least a pretty good book deal. On the other hand if they were all exposed as just accusations and used as a political smear then yes he would be disgraced, the only fear they would have is if they weren't telling the truth.

Remember Seth Rich? there were a lot of people that would have benefited from his death

 

[Stanyon]

It is spelled "poll". A pole is something Boris Johnson's American "friend" had in her flat - before she became too fat to use it.

The whole idea of a whistleblower is that the identity of the person is NOT revealed, in order not to make people afraid to report misconduct. It should be obvious - to anyone who is not terminally thick

Your sauciness is duly noted Bearnaise

The rules of trial evidence become relevant if and when there is a trial. The whistleblower sounds the alert so that there can be an investigation, during which evidence meeting the required legal standard can be gathered.

So anyone can claim something and we can waste even more tax dollars on another bogus politically motivated investigation because a political party is afraid of losing in 2020, that is the real abuse of power.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Who would be threatening to them? Trump couldn't touch them

Again, we're not just talking threats to them personally or of their personal safety (though that is an obvious and rational concern, regardless of what you say), it is also about their professional security. Not to mention the effect it has on potential other whistle blowers who may wish to come forward. It stands to reason that if anybody witnessed a crime, they would be less willing to come forward if they weren't guaranteed anonymity while the investigation is ongoing.

Professionally and personally if the claims were all true and not second and third hand accusations he would be considered a hero for uncovering corruption and may very well get a prominent role somewhere, at the very least a pretty good book deal. On the other hand if they were all exposed as just accusations and used as a political smear then yes he would be disgraced, the only fear they would have is if they weren't telling the truth.

This is all just speculation on your part. They have the right to anonymity while this is being investigated, and it's perfectly possible for a person to be completely honest in reporting a crime and yet turn out to be mistaken.

What possible benefit could come from the whistle blower's details being public? It would make zero difference beyond potentially significantly impacting the individual negatively.

Remember Seth Rich? there were a lot of people that would have benefited from his death

Irrelevant. The individual still has the right to anonymity and protection.

Also, you didn't answer my question as to why you brought up the Right to Confront Witness when it's completely irrelevant to the individuals' anonymity.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Some things to consider though, impeachment isn't exactly the same as a criminal trial. It's an investigation into if the president has breached in duty. What Trump allegedly did isn't really a crime in normal sense, but a crime to his office and the oath he swore. So it not being the same as a criminal court, it's debatable if the 6th amendment applies the same way. Besides, the whistle-blower isn't the one accusing Trump, but is really only reporting on hearsay. The impeachment inquiry is a fact finding mission to confirm or reject that what the whistle-blower reported is true or not and if it's a misuse of power by Trump, so perhaps Trump will be given his chance to confront his "accuser" or "accusers" at some point during the process. Given the right to confront the accuser is not the same as given the right to get the chance this instant.

I voted yes, because there are plenty of nutjobs out there who think God called them to "right the wrongs" through violence.

 

[dianaiad]

I don't really know. But given all that has happened in the past in politics, I think it's optimistic to think he wouldn't be in some form of peril.

Yeah.

He's in danger of getting sued or fired.

 

[Stanyon]

This is all just speculation on your part. They have the right to anonymity while this is being investigated, and it's perfectly possible for a person to be completely honest in reporting a crime and yet turn out to be mistaken.

It's 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?

The individual still has the right to anonymity and protection.

If you woke up one morning and noticed that someone had put a sign in your front yard stating "A Child Molester LIves Here!" would you say the same thing?

Seth Rich is relevant

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's 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?

What relevance does that have to a witnesses right to anonymity?

If you woke up one morning and noticed that someone had put a sign in your front yard stating "A Child Molester LIves Here!" would you say the same thing?

So, you're comparing somebody going through the correct legal channels to launch an investigation into a public figure while being protected by law to an illegal invasion of my property and slander/libel committed against me as a person?

Are you serious?

Seth Rich is relevant

False.

And you've STILL not explained what the benefit is to having their identity publicly known or what the relevance of the Right to Confront is.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's 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?

Agree. And that's what the impeachment is for, it's fact finding mission and investigation. We should assume innocence, but pursue a proper investigation.

I'm no fan of Trump, but impeachment is a proper response to find out the truth. For instance, was what he said intentional? Did he mean it the way it sounds or reads on the transcript? Was the withholding of the funds intentional to cause pressure? I think the key will be to find out if Trump meant what he did, or if he's just plain stupid (which is just as likely).

If you woke up one morning and noticed that someone had put a sign in your front yard stating "A Child Molester LIves Here!" would you say the same thing?

Seth Rich is relevant

On the other hand, if the police gets a tip of a child molester, is a witch-hunt if they investigate it?

 

[exchemist]

Your sauciness is duly noted Bearnaise



So anyone can claim something and we can waste even more tax dollars on another bogus politically motivated investigation because a political party is afraid of losing in 2020, that is the real abuse of power.

In this instance there is clearly a case to answer, so it will not be a waste of tax dollars. Justice costs money.

 

[Stanyon]

On the other hand, if the police gets a tip of a child molester, is a witch-hunt if they investigate it?

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

 

[Terry Sampson]

There's danger (#1), danger (#2), and danger (#3) at the very least.

1. Somebody's gonna kill or try to kill the whistleblower if and when his/her identity comes out.
2. Nobody's gonna try to kill him, but somebody's gonna fire or try to fire him/her and make sure he/she regrets blowing the whistle.
3. Nobody's gonna try to do #1 or #2, but somebody's gonna make him/her squirm, or try to, by outing him/her and letting the crazies do the rest to scare/annoy the bejeezus out of him/her and/or members of his/her immediate family.

As a former federal government employee, I put my money on #2; although, given POTUS Whack-job, I have to admit that #1, #2, AND #3 are not definitely out of the question.

 

[Stanyon]

Nobody's gonna try to kill him, but somebody's gonna fire or try to fire him/her and make sure he/she regrets blowing the whistle.

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.

 

[columbus]

If you want some insight into how Trump's mentor handles such issues:
All the times Russia allegedly carried out assassinations on British soil

The prime theory is that it was an assassination attempt carried out on the orders of the Russian government. If true, it would not be the first time Russia has conducted assassinations on British soil.

Tom