re: I’d Like to Hear Some Arguments Why the ID of the Whistleblower is Necessary

quote:

---

This has been a right in western civilization for literally thousands of years. But meh orange man bad so frick it.

---

The President is not above the law, but he is also certainly not under the law.

The accusations and inquiry arose due the the complaint field, by the whistleblower, to the ICIG.

Its you that doesn't know wtf is going on. Due process applies, we dont have secret fricking show trials her in the USA Comrade

quote:

---

Heard a GOP pundit rationalize the necessity of revealing the whistleblower’s identity by saying “if someone yells fire and you look over and there is actually a fire, you want to know who first saw the fire.” Not sure I understand his argument there

---

That's because it was an argument against revealing the WB as being "unnecessary"

I believe this is in the same category of the "Dossier"= a fake that kept the country divided for 2 years and used as a cudgel for getting a DEM HoR so they could use ANOTHER fake report to n-pinch a POTUS they have hated for 3 full years now - remember the slogan = "take him down - BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!!" ==

FIRST - this asshat is not a 'whistle blower" if he is only reporting on "what he heard" = if the ones telling him that are not willing to "blow the whistle" themselves on something that is "dangerous for our national security" then it must not be so 'dangerous to our national security' - Ten or Twelve people hearing the same thing didn't think it was anything nefarious.

The ONLY people who thought it was "nefarious" are the same ones who believed the 'piss dossier' and wanted the Mueller investigation to take him down.

This is all a damned hoax - and this WB needs to meet the same fate that Jussie Somllett should face.

That’s a funny take. I bet if you were he accused you would want the first to face you and allow you to confront them. GTFO with the rest of your drivel. This subject has been discussed many times and there are many reasons.

You sure smoked out a bunch of conservative constitutional charlatans.

You seem very upset that the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply to a political impeachment.

Take it up with the Founding Fathers.

Because once he is officially outed then public investigations in to his bias and behind the scenes sworn to undermine the president will come out to the public

If a "whistleblower" is a witness, then his credibility is EXTREMELY relevant. His credibility cannot be established if he is anonymous. In fact, his standing as a "witness" cannot even be corroborated if anonymous.


Dumbass.

Let me help you.

Impeachment is similar to a grand jury proceeding. You do not have a right to examine evidence presented before a grand jury, have your attorney present before a grand jury or cross-examine witnesses at a grand jury.

As for the Senate trial, I am not aware of any precedent stopping the suspension of any of those rights, either. The Senate makes the rules. Affording those rights in the Senate trial seems to be a courtesy, NOT a constitutional right.