- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I’d Like to Hear Some Arguments Why the ID of the Whistleblower is Necessary
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:14 pm to Huevos
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:14 pm to Huevos
First of all he is not a whistleblower. He is a leaker. Secondly, you have a right to confront your accuser. Of course, I understand democrats care nothing for the law and even less for the constitution. So, hiding behind a perverted interpretation of the law and timing a little fat off the constitution is no problem for them.
1
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:14 pm to texashorn
Steers and queers.
I don't see horns on you.
I don't see horns on you.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:14 pm to ljhog
quote:
First of all he is not a whistleblower. He is a leaker.
Correct. A whistleblower is usually someone in a federal agency who witnesses wrongdoing. This person was on the National Security Council (not a federal Agency) and did not witness anything, because their complaint relied on what they were told by someone else.
This post was edited on 11/24/19 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:27 pm to DyeHardDylan
What if we had a whistleblower report something about Nancy Pelosi, but it turns out that whistleblower was Rudy Guiliani? Is his identity relevant?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:29 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
What if we had a whistleblower report something about Nancy Pelosi, but it turns out that whistleblower was Rudy Guiliani? Is his identity relevant?
Rudy is a partisan like whoever this rat is, so yes.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:30 pm to Jax-Tiger
I told Kara that Schiff was a pedophile. Am I a whistleblower?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:38 pm to texashorn
quote:watch yourself bend over backwards to allow a nameless, faceless bureaucrat with zero first hand information to impeach a sitting president. Like that’s not opening pandora’s box for every future commander n chief.
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.
Since this spook leaker does not qualify as a whistleblower, don’t we need to know who he is so we can ask him who he heard his 3rd and 4th hand information from so we can get to the bottom of this?!? Oh, that’s right. The left doesn’t want to get to the bottom of what happened, they just want to tarnish the president’s reputation bc they hate him. Got it
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:39 pm to Huevos
Your logic is bad. There are IC whistleblower statutes and the person has net met the criteria if the statute. There was also a rule change to allow heresay to be used to file his case. TOO MANY thing wrong with this "whistleblower", there needs to be true investigation his actions. WB meet with Schifty Shitty Schiff before filing hearsay claims. Too convenient
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:41 pm to Huevos
quote:
You address the fire, it doesn’t matter who first saw it.
What if it's arson? Would it be a good idea to interview the person who first saw the fire if the fire is learned to be Arson?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:49 pm to Huevos
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
I don’t know who you’re referring to but they got the analogy wrong.
I’d say, if someone yells fire and there is no fire, we want to know who that person is. Especially when the chair of the committee is essentially caught with a box of matches.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 7:54 pm to Huevos
quote:
Seems to me it’s completely irrelevant in this context.
Unless it was done with a political bias and malicious intent.
Surely you're not one of those, "This was a completely apolitical civil servant with no bias or malicious intent towards the President, his agenda or his voters", types are you?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:08 pm to ELVIS U
quote:
Because in America we have the right to confront our accuser
in a criminal case, sure
that’s not what a house impeachment inquiry is
Posted on 11/24/19 at 9:18 pm to Huevos
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 ?
If the person falsely yelled fire, you absolutely look over to see who the liar is.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 9:25 pm to texashorn
quote:
You seem very upset that the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply to a political impeachment.
What are you referring to??
Be specific.
Thanks.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:17 pm to Huevos
Eric Ciaramella
Posted on 11/25/19 at 12:49 am to texashorn
quote:
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.
Do you mean like, even if congress tries to get at this evidence?
Also, you mentioned before that this is a political process. Doesn't that mean the public opinion heavily dictates this process? If so, isn't there a public appetite for fairness? I'm pretty sure people, in general, feel as though a person does have the right to face anyone else that is accusing them of something, or even slandering, or whatever.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 12:54 am to Cali 4 LSU
quote:
Also, you mentioned before that this is a political process. Doesn't that mean the public opinion heavily dictates this process? If so, isn't there a public appetite for fairness? I'm pretty sure people, in general, feel as though a person does have the right to face anyone else that is accusing them of something, or even slandering, or whatever.
doesn’t matter what “people in general” think. there’s rules, procedures and laws. nobody cares what you think outside those
Posted on 11/25/19 at 12:54 am to Huevos
quote:
If I work for a government agency and witness fraud, waste or abuse by a government employee and alert the inspector general, they will be the one accusing him, not me.
But your identity, history, and relationship to the thing you witnessed goes a long way into believing whether or not you actually did
Posted on 11/25/19 at 2:55 am to texashorn
You're not clever for WELL ACKSCHKTUALLY'ing the fact that this isn't a criminal proceeding just because it hasn't gone to the Senate yet. Rights don't exist as arbitrary words on a page of legal text. They're an expression of our country's fundamental principles that are supposed to permeate all aspects of our lives.
@OP:
The right to face one's accusers is a value fundamental to Anglo-American society and predates the Constitution. For the accused, it represents an opportunity to prove his innocence and gives notice of what he's accused; for invested bystanders, like voters in an upcoming presidential election in which the accused is a part, it represents an opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the accusations.
There's your argument. We the people have a direct interest in a fair resolution of this accusation, given its impact on an upcoming election. A fair resolution necessitates the revelation of the accuser.
@OP:
The right to face one's accusers is a value fundamental to Anglo-American society and predates the Constitution. For the accused, it represents an opportunity to prove his innocence and gives notice of what he's accused; for invested bystanders, like voters in an upcoming presidential election in which the accused is a part, it represents an opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the accusations.
There's your argument. We the people have a direct interest in a fair resolution of this accusation, given its impact on an upcoming election. A fair resolution necessitates the revelation of the accuser.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 3:15 am to wookalar1013
quote:
doesn’t matter what “people in general” think. there’s rules, procedures and laws. nobody cares what you think outside those
Then why are democrats focus group testing words like "quid pro quo", "extortion", & "bribery"? If nobody cares what you think outside of rules, procedures and laws....why are they asking what "people in general" think? Furthermore, its been said in this very thread, that impeachment is a political process, not: to a "T", letter of the law, procedure which is why the whole "face your accuser" is obsolete.
So which is it? A legal procedure (where rules, procedures, laws matter) or a political procedure (where they don't)?
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News