"... according to people familiar with the matter. The request reflects concerns about whether the whistleblower could testify to Democrats and Republicans without revealing his identity, and fears that doing so would lead to it being publicly leaked, jeopardizing his personal safety. The intelligence committees haven't yet responded to the inquiry, the people said."
The Wall Street Journal reports.
Safety is important, but what about our interest in assessing this person's credibility? I want to look the person in the face and hear the voice. Is the person's identity to be kept secret, so that there's no opportunity to consider bias and political motivation? Why are we bothering with this person at all when we have the transcript of the famous telephone call? If it's not to put a face on the accusation, do we even care?
Of course, I think the impeachment inquiry is all political theater. And theater isn't theater if the actors don't strut and fret their hour upon the stage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
62 comments:
I agree. Especially considering he seems to have had help writing the whistleblower complaint in the first place. If he answers in writing, how will we know *he* wrote the answers?
Yes, and keep going: "[I]t is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
I had read the whistleblower program only protects the individual from retaliation in the work place, it does not offer to keep the person’s identify from the public. Perhaps there is someone on here who works in government who can clarify. I don’t see how an impeachment inquiry could proceed if the main accuser’s identify and demeanor is kept from Congress and the public.
Does he not have cachet to op-ed anywhere as many times as he wants.
And remaining anonymous!?
Of course Democrats will allow this. Then they'll read all about it in The Washington Post, noting that Democracy Dies in Darkness.
Political theater is right. The illusion is that this entire leaking is so, so dangerous that all measures must be undertaken to protect him. Drama! And pure BS.
If the confrontation clause is abolished for this case, we are in big trouble.
The Dems won’t like it when unnamed and secret persons accuse them of crimes and they end up in the gulag.
Whistle blower laws protect the individual from reprisal, such as being fired. They do not protect one's identity.
As far as this being political theater, my advise would be to take it seriously. The second Pelosi has the votes, there will be a vote. It could happen today, tomorrow, or never.
Heh. Adam Schiff is the whistleblower. Think: have you ever seen the two of them together?
"Why are we bothering with this person at all when we have the transcript of the famous telephone call?"
The transcript doesn't show any impeachable offenses, so it is of little value to Democrats. Anonymous whistle-blowers, however, can invent all sorts of impeachable offenses.
Trump submitted his testimony in writing, after endless revisions by lawyers.
In the interests of fairness, he should have been subject to the same in person grilling as Hillary was, for 11 hours.
It is up to the Democrats. The whistleblower law says anonymity; the reality of this case says public testimony on C-Span and all the channels, or it is all political "fake news."
So it was a Biden "ally" who released this "whistleblower" story, now, to cover for Obama, Brennan and company?
But in the meantime the story has only highlighted Biden's corruption?
Did anyone ask the "whistleblower's" attorney who might want harm to come to his client?
At this point, I don't think it's a Trump supporter.
I am certain that by now all the key players know precisely who he is. This is theater, plain and simple, and no one intelligent should fall for this gambit.
"Why are we bothering with this person at all when we have the transcript of the famous telephone call?"
To give the Democrats media partners an excuse to continue blathering how Trump must be impeached.
How will the whistleblowers collect GoFundMe bucks anonymously? Maybe Bitcoin will work?
If the Kavanaugh hearings taught the Democrats anything, it's to make sure the testimony comes from an anonymous source who is never revealed so the story can never be checked out or cross-examined on the stand.
Somebody should get around to asking the Democratic candidates for president whether they are in favor of appointing judges who accept the testimony of somebody who was not a direct witness to the event and refuses to testify in person as admissible in court, because that kind of standard should worry anybody interested in civil liberties or due process.
This is all sound and fury, it's impossible to blow a whistle on something that's been made public. I think the Democrats are just trying to keep the whole whistleblower thing alive long enough to fabricate a better anonymous whistleblower complaint.
Because just like Kavanaugh, the whole thing falls apart of you are allowed to rebuff your accuser.
What kind of danger was Christine Blasey Ford in, really? She has almost a million dollars in a GoFundMe account. There's no danger. The NYT has already pretty much outed him to anyone who is in DC.
Just bluster.
I am still trying to understand why Hillary was allowed to hire a law firm in the UK to hunt down dirt on Trump, but Trump’s personal lawyer is not allowed to investigate the source of that dirt.
You have to admire the balls on the Democrats, but boy do they think Americans are stupid.
"he should have been subject to the same in person grilling as Hillary was, for 11 hours. “
The same Hillary who had fixers in the FBI who changed “gross negligence” (criminally culpable) to “extremely careless” which doesn’t mean anything, luckily for her?
"jeopardizing his personal safety"
Is he planning on saying something negative about Hillary?
"In the interests of fairness"
Where to begin...
No. Hell no.
This so-called "whistleblower" should testify in person, and should be questioned in person, in real time.
By Grabthar's Hammer, this is a farce.
I want to look into the Administration officials faces and hear their testimony, but that is done behind closed doors and their words kept secret.
Seems like there should be a lot of public testimony, not just this one witness.
The Whistleblower is Cornpop!
The whistleblower is worried about his or her safety? Safety was important to the attendees of last night’s Trump rally in Minnesota who upon leaving were attacked by Antifa thugs, but they were mostly left to be assaulted. Suck it up, whistleblower. And keep your second-hand gossip to yourself next time.
How is the "whistle blower" in more personal danger than representatives and senators who would vote for impeachment, or the ones leading impeachment inquiry?
He/she probable looks and behaves as weird as Peter Strzok so is afraid to show face.
Far more interesting is how the whistleblower statute was revised to allow second-hand information.
And yes, this is 100% theater.
Assuming the "whistleblower" is a real person, not a Perkins Cole lawyer work product, then their profile and occupation suggests they live in the DC area, which voted 95% for Hillary Clinton. There is therefore no danger to them if they just stay in the swamp.
It's not out of the realm for Hillary to be either behind this whistle blower complaint or taking the opportunity to move some the levers behind the scenes. Driving Biden out of the race would give her the opportunity to toss her Mao jacket into the ring using the excuse that "all the centrist candidates are gone," which would resonate better with independents than her current rasison d'etre, i.e. "grifters gotta grift."
The House Democrats want grand-jury testimony, tax records, White House documents and any other private materials that might contain any incriminating information about Donald Trump -- or about any of his relatives, associates, friends or supporters.
The House Democrats' argument for getting such documents is that an anonymous CIA spy -- a trained, professional liar -- has written a statement based on second-hand information. (The statement has been contradicted by a transcript that subsequently was released to the public.)
The House Democrats are doing so because they want to remove the elected US President from his office -- a President who is likely to win re-election about a year from now.
’...he should have been subject to the same in person grilling as Hillary was, for 11 hours.’
How many US citizens died, re: the Ukraine phone call?
The transcript doesn't show any impeachable offenses, so it is of little value to Democrats. Anonymous whistle-blowers, however, can invent all sorts of impeachable offenses
A journalist was a guest on a radio talk show I listened to earlier this week. Her job was to explain the impeachment story to the rubes. She kept insisting the transcript verified everything the whistleblower reported. When the host finally pushed back saying the transcript did no such thing, she responded with the explanation that you would understand Trump's guilt if you read the transcript in the voices of characters from the Sopranos tv show. She was absolutely serious. You can't make this shit up. This is the media we have in America today.
Just like the #MeToo, this is "different" and requires "accommodations". All you normals need to just "shut up" about all this "fairness" and stuff. A higher purpose is being served here. There is a lesson to be taught to "fly over" land and nothing can get in the say of it.
Why is sacred holy whistle-blower so sacred and holy?
D-machine.
The parallels with the Kavanaugh hearing have been pointed out by other posters, but it bears repeating.
Also note that the Democrats increasingly act like they are college administrators who can make up their own rules when persecuting their conservative opponents. Soviet show trials will be coming soon.
Skylark said...
You have to admire the balls on the Democrats, but boy do they think Americans are stupid.
10/11/19, 7:03 AM
They are right to think that about almost half of the country. They keep getting elected don't they?
Whistle blower protections are about protecting the WB superiors from retaliating.
The claim of safety concerns, lack evidence.
I have asked elsewhere, How does Pelosi refusing to allow the rules used in past impeachments, like the ranking member having subpoena power, and the Presidents counsel able to ask questions hinder the fact finding mission of the House?
He worked for Biden? He’s not a whistleblower, just a blower.
This guy/gal might think he can his/her identity under wraps.
Keep dreaming.
Who killed Seth Rich?
I thought we all agreed that the gossiper is not a whistleblower. As I understand the gossiper is a member of the Intelligence Community but the President is not. Further the complained about call was not an intelligence activity but a diplomatic or executive activity.
So how does the gossiper get any protections under the act?
I can't believe that there are not many people in the Trump administration who can't deduce the identity of the whistleblower from publicly available info: worked at the CIA, seconded to the WH during Obama and Trump admins, field of expertise includes Ukraine. The WH foreign policy staff can't be that big.
Theatre or not, the hysteria is becoming ever more real. The Jimmy Kimnel show came on as I was getting ready to turn off the TV. He opened the show by announcing that a majority of the Americen people supported impeaching and removing the President. Thunderous cheering and applause. He even showed a graph of the poll results just as I clicked off the tube. It's been years since I've watched the late night shows. I knew it had happened, but the shift from comedic monologue to political rally was jarring and a bit frightening once I actually saw it.
This is shaping up to be a show trial that could make Stalin blush.
Of witch hunts, warlock trials, penumbras and emanations. Due process is a concept of the White patriarchy, and sometimes the matriarchy, and selectively the baby in occupation.
What about Jeffrey Epstein?
Who killed Seth Rich?
The claim was Mr. Convenient Coincidence, but it may have been a Mx.
First the sentence, then the trial.
Never forget: Christine Blasey Ford was afraid to fly because of her brutalization by Bret Kavanaugh and wanted two doors on her house because of her heightened flight response, notwithstanding all her surfing trips to Hawaii and the far Pacific and the fact that she flew to Washington while her lawyers were making these preposterous claims.
These dishonest people love to throw a "she/he fears for her/his safety" coating on their sensational and dubious claims. I suppose they think it adds a glaze of credibility to the nonsense they are concocting.
Oh it can be theater if the villain hides himself behind the curtain, and simply shoves the stiletto in the victim's back--through the curtain as it were.
Bad theater--but theater none the less. Still Schiff could use a better playwright.
There is no 'whistleblower.' There is a mole. The mole doesn't want to come out into the light. Surprise, surprise.
Later, when a book deal or a Netflix miniseries is available, the mole will be happy to come out. And surely a flattering Vanity Fair spread awaits.
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
Who killed Seth Rich?
Who's killing Seth Rich's parents?
If the Kavanaugh hearings taught the Democrats anything, it's to make sure the testimony comes from an anonymous source who is never revealed so the story can never be checked out or cross-examined on the stand.
Yup. And ARM is worried about Seth Rich's parents. I would just like to know their bank balance. The Kopechnes got $60,000. I wonder what a kid is worth these days ?
Maybe the blower is a minor child, or a woman, and therefore needs extra protection from the bad orange man.
The relevant whistleblower statute is 5 U.S.C. Section 2302(b)(8) and (9). There is nothing in there about anonymity, it only deals with retaliatory action.
Why aren't people more upset at this crap? Especially the R senators and congressmen?
The W-B "fears for his safety"? Safety from who? The Congressman and Trump put up with "Death Threats" every day. And when's the last time any Federal W-B was attacked or killed? Its stupid, its weak, and its designed to keep us from knowing EXACTLY who it is, because once we do, we'll find out he's a partisan hack tied up with Clapper or Brennan.
Its just like Blowsey-Fraud, she couldn't fly to DC because she was "Scared of flying". And everyone goes, "oh you poor dear". And then we learn she'd just flown SFO to Delaware and back that summer, and every year flew all around the world to surf. But no one said anything about the obvious lie. No one got upset. Gramps Grassley just chuckled and said tsk, tsk.
Interesting gambit by the Democrats, ahem, Whistleblower. The complaint and transcript do not agree as to the content of Trump's call with Ukraine. If we are to be convinced that the complaint is correct we need to assess and ultimately accept the credibility of the Whistleblower. That is impossible, for most thinking people, if the Whistleblower remains anonymous and never appears in person for questioning and assessment. As someone above says, how do we know it was the Whistleblower that composed the written responses to the questions? We don't. If the Whistleblower refuses to meet in person for questioning the complaint should be dismissed and discarded.
Any news on the second Whistleblower? Is that just something we're calling this supposed second person or is there a formal second complaint filed?
Of course the identity of the #Whistleblower must be protected to keep him from being smothered by the excessive love of the media, but how is he going to get his book deal? Can you have an anonymous #Gofundme?
"Who's killing Seth Rich's parents?”
Were they eye witnesses?
I am trying to figure out still why Hillary could hire a law firm to dig dirt on Trump in Europe and Russia and collect disinformation from Putin’s spies, but Trump can’t hire a lawyer to look into how that was done in order to defend himself from Schiff’s “Russiagate” investigation.
He is attempting to avoid cross-examination- in other words, all written answers will ignore inconvenient questions on cross.
In other words- it is all a fraud.
And, by the way- the people working the hardest to out this guy are the Democrats, not the Republicans. It was the NYTimes, after all, that published the information that allowed him to be identified. Schiff and the Democrats need a witness on the stand, else there is no real big event to build a case to the public. So, people are reading this wrong. The whistleblower, however, has probably lied repeatedly and knowingly- this is why he is trying to scurry away in the night.
Post a Comment