|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 4, 2019 15:57:49 GMT -5
I've seen the rumors about who the whistleblower is and the supposed background but haven't heard it from any source I'd trust. We'll see, I hope. The whistleblower followed a legal path to bring attention to something he or she thought was egregious. The summary of the conversation confirms the whistleblower's compliant. The opening statements and testimony released so far confirm the whistleblower's complaints. Why the whistleblower matters to anybody at this point is a mystery. The whistle blower was quite likely (reasonably close to being conclusively proven) a disgruntled Administrative State minion (damn near all of them are when it comes to Trump) who filed the complaint with the help of what would appear to be a team of lawyers (probably more disgruntled Administrative State flaks) who had no personal knowledge of the incidents in question and who might have even worked with Schiff's office to perfect his bitch opus. Hey, the coward wants to play, he should be willing to stand up for what he believes. Besides, he can probably be called in the Senate if it gets that far. Get it over with now.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 4, 2019 16:02:44 GMT -5
Particularly in the spin cycle of modern day politics, the identity of the whistle blower is paramount. How can you impune a source if you don't know who it is? I'm guessing it's a careerguy and he doesn't want his career tanked. Good luck with that.
But there is a nice concept in our judicial democracy that one gets to confront their accuser. If his/her testimony is going to have any weight in these proceeding, the person's identity will have to be known. I heard today that the wb's attorney is negotiating some deal (security?) before his/her identity becomes known and open testimony is given.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 4, 2019 16:07:18 GMT -5
Particularly in the spin cycle of modern day politics, the identity of the whistle blower is paramount. How can you impune a source if you don't know who it is? I'm guessing it's a careerguy and he doesn't want his career tanked. Good luck with that. But there is a nice concept in our judicial democracy that one gets to confront their accuser. If his/her testimony is going to have any weight in these proceeding, the person's identity will have to be known. I heard today that the wb's attorney is negotiating some deal (security?) before his/her identity becomes known and open testimony is given. Whistleblower laws are in place so that a person can tell the truth without fear of retaliation. Nothing depends on the whistleblower’s statements or identity. Absolutely nothing. When the whistle blew, the curtain was raised on all the evidence. Sorry it turned out to be so ugly for Trump, but so be it. Going after the whistleblower is illegal. Also, vindictive, & disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 4, 2019 16:08:32 GMT -5
Particularly in the spin cycle of modern day politics, the identity of the whistle blower is paramount. How can you impune a source if you don't know who it is? I'm guessing it's a careerguy and he doesn't want his career tanked. Good luck with that. But there is a nice concept in our judicial democracy that one gets to confront their accuser. If his/her testimony is going to have any weight in these proceeding, the person's identity will have to be known. I heard today that the wb's attorney is negotiating some deal (security?) before his/her identity becomes known and open testimony is given. Whistleblower laws are in place so that a person can tell the truth without fear of retaliation. It's about power imbalances. There is no better example than a POTUS going after a person who has TOLD THE TRUTH! Nothing depends on the whistleblower’s statements or identity. Absolutely nothing. When the whistle blew, the curtain was raised on all the evidence. Sorry it turned out to be so ugly for Trump, but so be it. Going after the whistleblower is illegal. Also, vindictive, & disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 4, 2019 16:12:26 GMT -5
The whistle blower was quite likely (reasonably close to being conclusively proven) a disgruntled Administrative State minion **sigh** I agree it's probably somebody like that. But I think it's sad that so many good people who have made their life's work serving this country's interests can be reduced to being called just Administrative State Minions. Trump shows no respect for anyone else but himself. He brings the wrath on himself.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 4, 2019 16:23:08 GMT -5
Particularly in the spin cycle of modern day politics, the identity of the whistle blower is paramount. How can you impune a source if you don't know who it is? I'm guessing it's a careerguy and he doesn't want his career tanked. Good luck with that. But there is a nice concept in our judicial democracy that one gets to confront their accuser. If his/her testimony is going to have any weight in these proceeding, the person's identity will have to be known. I heard today that the wb's attorney is negotiating some deal (security?) before his/her identity becomes known and open testimony is given. Whistleblower laws are in place so that a person can tell the truth without fear of retaliation. Nothing depends on the whistleblower’s statements or identity. Absolutely nothing. When the whistle blew, the curtain was raised on all the evidence. Sorry it turned out to be so ugly for Trump, but so be it. Going after the whistleblower is illegal. Also, vindictive, & disgusting. I'm looking forward to seeing him crushed. Your disgust is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 4, 2019 16:27:26 GMT -5
Whistleblower laws are in place so that a person can tell the truth without fear of retaliation. Nothing depends on the whistleblower’s statements or identity. Absolutely nothing. When the whistle blew, the curtain was raised on all the evidence. Sorry it turned out to be so ugly for Trump, but so be it. Going after the whistleblower is illegal. Also, vindictive, & disgusting. I'm looking forward to seeing him crushed. Your disgust is irrelevant. The law is relevant. The whistleblower is protected by the law. Your desire to destroy the person who initiated a process that has revealed the layers of corruption that exist in Trumpland is what is irrelevant. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 4, 2019 16:29:21 GMT -5
The whistle blower was quite likely (reasonably close to being conclusively proven) a disgruntled Administrative State minion **sigh** I agree it's probably somebody like that. But I think it's sad that so many good people who have made their life's work serving this country's interests can be reduced to being called just Administrative State Minions. Trump shows no respect for anyone else but himself. He brings the wrath on himself. I've paid my dues. You vastly over estimate the sainthood of Federal wonks.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 4, 2019 16:31:04 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to seeing him crushed. Your disgust is irrelevant. The law is relevant. The whistleblower is protected by the law. Your desire to destroy the person who initiated a process that has revealed the layers of corruption that exist in Trumpland is what is irrelevant. Sorry. The law only applies to his employers. Once he's definitively rooted out, there's nothing he can do.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Nov 4, 2019 16:32:48 GMT -5
I've seen the rumors about who the whistleblower is and the supposed background but haven't heard it from any source I'd trust. We'll see, I hope. The whistleblower followed a legal path to bring attention to something he or she thought was egregious. The summary of the conversation confirms the whistleblower's compliant. The opening statements and testimony released so far confirm the whistleblower's complaints. Why the whistleblower matters to anybody at this point is a mystery. I tend to agree. To a point. As I sit and view this from the sidelines it occurs to me followed the whistle blower's report has steadily devolved into an untidy mess. Regardless of whatever else happens from this moment forward, it's clear that the whistle blower is not going to be free of reprisal. Trump, and a variety of Republicans, have already accused the whistle blower of being a spy, a never Trumper, and worse. The character assassination has progressed at an alarming rate in my opinion. As seems to be inevitable these days, it's likely that eventually the whistle blower's identity will become known. How he/she will dig out from under the damage that's already been done is anyone's guess. That appears to me to be a subversion of the intent of the whistle blower law. Even if it's not, it's a departure from accepted standards of civility that I would find difficult to forgive. Like some much involved in this mess there is a big BUT. The whistle blower did not divulge first-hand knowledge. It all came from other people. Viewed from that angle, there is little reason to depose the whistle blower as people who were involved have testified. In fact there seems to be no end of people with first-hand knowledge of the phone call. Some are Trump supporters and some are not. It's a bit of a mystery to me why people who are now expressing their misgivings about the call didn't do more to make those misgivings known at the time. How did it happen that someone operating on nothing more than hearsay is more or less responsible for starting an impeachment inquiry? In the general scheme of things that's not a big deal but it is an interesting question given the degree to which Trump is reportedly intensely disliked within the State Department. I've always been under the impression that in this country the accused has a right to be confronted by his accuser. While it's true that the house has the authority to devise any set of rules they want with regard to the inquiry and subsequent impeachment, it seems a little odd to me that they wouldn't have started in a more transparent manner and that the accuser would not be brought forward. There is this little, really skeptical, part of me that keeps whispering that the whole impeachment is a railroad job and that the Democrats firmly believe that getting rid of Trump is so important and has such broad public support, even among Republicans in congress who feel forced to support him publicly, that no one is going to worry too much about the finer points of how the job is carried out. I truly hope I'm wrong. I'd feel much better about this if Trump had been caught doing something really big like emptying the cash in a safe in the Treasury building into a pillow case. But this just seems like penny ante stuff.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 4, 2019 16:50:04 GMT -5
The law is relevant. The whistleblower is protected by the law. Your desire to destroy the person who initiated a process that has revealed the layers of corruption that exist in Trumpland is what is irrelevant. Sorry. The law only applies to his employers. Once he's definitively rooted out, there's nothing he can do. "The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a law that protects federal government employees in the United States from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring in a government organization." What a concept. But, yeah. Root him out. Maybe they could set him loose at a MAGA rally and let the True Believers tear him limb from limb? But once they have done so, that facts will remain. The witnesses who have corroborated what the whistleblower blew the lid off of, will also remain. Unless in this new lawless system we also throw them to the Red Hats Warriors?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 4, 2019 16:54:38 GMT -5
The law only applies to his employers. Once he's definitively rooted out, there's nothing he can do. "The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a law that protects federal government employees in the United States from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring in a government organization." What a concept. But, yeah. Root him out. Maybe they could set him loose at a MAGA rally and let the True Believers tear him limb from limb? But once they have done so, that facts will remain. The witnesses who have corroborated what the whistleblower blew the lid off of, will also remain. Unless in this new lawless system we also throw them to the Red Hats Warriors? Nothing lawless about it. He let his arrogance get the better of him. He was dealing from the bottom of the deck and got caught. He should have seen it coming.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 4, 2019 16:56:35 GMT -5
The whistleblower followed a legal path to bring attention to something he or she thought was egregious. The summary of the conversation confirms the whistleblower's compliant. The opening statements and testimony released so far confirm the whistleblower's complaints. Why the whistleblower matters to anybody at this point is a mystery. I've always been under the impression that in this country the accused has a right to be confronted by his accuser. Impeachment is not a court of law, and has its own set of rules. Bill Clinton's accuser was a woman named Linda Tripp. Bill Clinton did not have the right to face her. Bill Clinton was President of the United States of America. Linda Tripp was a private citizen who told stories that ultimately turned out to be true. Her accusations were not the point. The fact that her stories were true were backed up by the facts. And then Clinton lied. That was what got Clinton impeached.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 4, 2019 16:59:29 GMT -5
"The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a law that protects federal government employees in the United States from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring in a government organization." What a concept. But, yeah. Root him out. Maybe they could set him loose at a MAGA rally and let the True Believers tear him limb from limb? But once they have done so, that facts will remain. The witnesses who have corroborated what the whistleblower blew the lid off of, will also remain. Unless in this new lawless system we also throw them to the Red Hats Warriors? Nothing lawless about it. He let his arrogance get the better of him. He was dealing from the bottom of the deck and got caught. He should have seen it coming. He or she was following the law. "Rooting him out," has nothing to do with the law. A desire to destroy a law abiding citizen is being fueled by the President of the damn USA. This is beyond diseased.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Nov 4, 2019 17:31:21 GMT -5
... I've always been under the impression that in this country the accused has a right to be confronted by his accuser. ... But not publicly known for mob revenge and retribution. A shielded identity (Jane Doe) is typical in many cases these days. And as others have pointed out, the claim that 'I need to know my accuser' is an effort to put process before evidence and facts--to blame/smear the messenger (as above) as a way to deflect the message.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Nov 4, 2019 17:32:19 GMT -5
I've always been under the impression that in this country the accused has a right to be confronted by his accuser. Impeachment is not a court of law, and has its own set of rules. Bill Clinton's accuser was a woman named Linda Tripp. Bill Clinton did not have the right to face her. Bill Clinton was President of the United States of America. Linda Tripp was a private citizen who told stories that ultimately turned out to be true. Her accusations were not the point. The fact that her stories were true were backed up by the facts. And then Clinton lied. That was what got Clinton impeached. You got me. Everything you said in your response was true. If you wanted to quote me, though, you might have completed my thought. I am aware that impeachment is not a court proceeding. I'm aware (as the unquoted part of what I wrote made clear) that the house decides on the rules of impeachment. Clinton did not have the right to face his accuser. It may surprise you to know that I thought that was wrong too. The power that the house has to set it's own rules doesn't mean that in doing so they should ignore some of the rights that might ordinarily exist. In fact it smacks of a lack of fairness if they do. Republicans or Democrats. Doesn't matter. They both have shown willingness to do things they shouldn't in their zeal to get rid of someone they don't like. And it's our own damned fault if we don't call them on it.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 4, 2019 17:56:07 GMT -5
They both have shown willingness to do things they shouldn't in their zeal to get rid of someone they don't like. "zeal," what a great word. Four little letters, one of them a "z," no less, but think of all the power and clarity and specificity and breadth of its meaning.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 4, 2019 18:12:22 GMT -5
Impeachment is not a court of law, and has its own set of rules. Bill Clinton's accuser was a woman named Linda Tripp. Bill Clinton did not have the right to face her. Bill Clinton was President of the United States of America. Linda Tripp was a private citizen who told stories that ultimately turned out to be true. Her accusations were not the point. The fact that her stories were true were backed up by the facts. And then Clinton lied. That was what got Clinton impeached. You got me. Everything you said in your response was true. If you wanted to quote me, though, you might have completed my thought. I am aware that impeachment is not a court proceeding. I'm aware (as the unquoted part of what I wrote made clear) that the house decides on the rules of impeachment. Clinton did not have the right to face his accuser. It may surprise you to know that I thought that was wrong too. The power that the house has to set it's own rules doesn't mean that in doing so they should ignore some of the rights that might ordinarily exist. In fact it smacks of a lack of fairness if they do. Republicans or Democrats. Doesn't matter. They both have shown willingness to do things they shouldn't in their zeal to get rid of someone they don't like. And it's our own damned fault if we don't call them on it. I was zeroing I’m on that one thought as it has come up a lot. Did not mean to take you out of context. My apologies. IMO the process arguments that the GOP has been pushing are mostly nonsense. They bitched because of closed committee meetings then voted unanimously against an open inquiry. His actual accusers will be the House members who vote for his impeachment. His day in court will take place in the Senate. Bill Clinton cooperated with Ken Starr. Trump stonewalled Mueller and has tried to stonewall the House. He has zero interest in facing his accusers.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 4, 2019 20:09:46 GMT -5
Nothing lawless about it. He let his arrogance get the better of him. He was dealing from the bottom of the deck and got caught. He should have seen it coming. He or she was following the law. "Rooting him out," has nothing to do with the law. A desire to destroy a law abiding citizen is being fueled by the President of the damn USA. This is beyond diseased. A. The whistle blower's job and career as a bureaucrat is guaranteed. Mostly by the fact that, after the first year it's virtually impossible to fire one. His whistle blower protections are simply redundant. B. I'm sure he and his family reside in the DMV somewhere among nothing but comrades and fellow Administrative State types. His and his families personal safety is a lock other than the humiliation of having to face up to what he did. What discovering him does for the country is give us a serious look into where we've gotten to in this age of impeachment. Look at history- prior to Nixon in '72-'73 it had been something like 110 years since the first impeachment attempts. Now we're on number 3 in 50 years. Ask yourself what in the hell happened in the meantime? Well, in the mid-60s the Administrative State became a permanent "thing" capable of turning something inherently political (impeachment) into something much more manageable and legalistic. Nixon's real crime (remember, he had just won reelection in a landslide) was in trying to push back against the Administrative State. He didn't really lose the battle so much as he surrendered. In the process the Administrative State managed to completely disenfranchise the electorate rendering them a functional but powerless entity in steering the country. And now here we are. The Administrative State and their allies in the media first signaled their intentions 19 minutes after the inauguration when the Washington Post declared that the work of impeachment had begun in earnest. What got Trump elected was that he recognized the challenge from the start and vowed to defeat it in a number of ways (which you probably don't fully appreciate yet either). That's why his supporters stay with him. They want their country back. The Democrats- the party of progressives and the eternal leftward lurch- are afraid. And I believe they've made a horrible strategic mistake this time. They keep missing and pissing off the oposition. And emboldening them. Game on, kids. Bring the whistle blower forward to explain why he did what he did. It wasn't a matter of moral fortitude- he risked NOTHING. It was a matter of trying to kill the beast that interupted the comfortable party. Go Trump!
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Nov 4, 2019 20:30:25 GMT -5
... Bill Clinton cooperated with Ken Starr. ... Reagan cooperated, too. For iran-contra, when there was talk of impeachment, he sent everyone to testify before congress, along with all the evidence. It went away.
|
|