Why does the whistleblower's identity matter?

The truth for one.

 

Whistle blowers are never put under protective custody nor in witness protection.

 

Even if I were to agree with you that the impeachment process is corrupt (I don’t) that does not change the question before the senate: has the president committed an impeachable offense? If you have concerns over how the impeachment inquiry started, start a new investigation. It is undisputed that the president withheld aid from Ukraine. The question is whether that is an impeachable offense. Not how it was discovered that the president withheld aid from Ukraine.

 

The identity of a whistle blower is not carte blanche protected under the Act.

 

We don't. If there is an allegation of some kind of criminal conspiracy then that would need to be reported to (anonymously if necessary of course ) and investigated by the relevant legal authorities. They'd need to know who the whistleblower was if he was involved in that alleged criminal behaviour (and presumably already do) but there is no reason for his identity to be (officially) made public unless and until further legal procedures require it (such and them being charged with a related criminal offence or being required to give evidence in some related court case).

 

There does need to be an investigation. However, the primary accuser now is the House of Representatives (Democrats only). Whether or not Schiff set up the whistleblower to be the eventual "fall guy" (if Schiff is caught in conspiracy) is secondary to the House charges at this point in the game.

Anyway, this is going to be a moot point, probably as early as tomorrow. Republicans appear to have enough "No" votes on additional witnesses to close out this sad chapter of history.

 

Start a separate investigation after the impeachment process is over. Alt best, an investigation into the whistleblower might reveal foul play in how the president’s decision tho withhold aid from Ukraine came to light. But no matter how it came to light, that has no bearing over whether the president’s decision is impeachable conduct.

 

Truth is this person is hiding behind the whistleblower law under false pretenses. He himself was privileged to nothing and was not a participant in the phone call in question. He was on the other hand a democrat political operative who conspired with Shif for brains to instigate an impeachment of Trump. The original plan was to make false allegations about the content of the call thinking Trump would never release the transcript in order to preserve the rights of the executive branch. Trump fooled them by releasing the transcript but democrats were all in by then and had their course laid as exemplified by Shiffs false reading of the transcript.
It's important to know this mans identity and have him testify to bring all of the above out in trial and to be able to question him about Shiffs participation in this scheme which would out him as an absolute liar.
Fortunately though the Senate and America can see all of this without the testimony of the so called whistleblower and the democrats coup attempt is falling apart but it would have been icing on the cake to officially bust Shiff for lying to Congress and to America.

 

The public has the "need to know" the extent of corrupt acts by government officials. Only through public pressure can there be any hope for justice. Otherwise the politically connected will continue to get away with their criminal acts.

 

Could be because a legitimate trial requires evidence- not hearsay.
There is no question in any honest mind that the dems have been willing to fabricate and distort anything they can use to present as a case- in plainer language, lacking evidence they have been engaging in a vendetta that actually started on election night, when they lost the smear campaign that has endured ferociously throughout the campaign. The "bad faith" associated with the entire democratic efforts here shine discredit on everything they claim, and they have earned and own that discredit.

IF the whistleblower issue was an invention of the democrats, or one of a Trump-hater, then everything based on that pursuit is legally- no more than fruit of the poisoned tree... and inadmissible.
You can't manufacture allegations and witness who heard someone say they heard someone say, and expect honest people to take your word for it- especially when your side can deny bias in people like Strozok. That's kind of like saying the Japanese had no malice in the attack on Peal Harbor, we just misunderstood.

A chain of evidence is required- verifiable evidence, not hearsay, not allegations, not anonymous tips. That's why.
Ask yourself how it would feel if you were on trial because some anonymous person put a twist on some event to make you look criminal- but you couldn't find out who, or cross examine them.
That sir, IS the way a Witch Hunt works.

If you want America to remain free for your children and their children, you will not allow bias and hate, no matter how deep and entrenched it is, to over-ride the basic principles of justice and fair play.

 

Only the House can conduct an impeachment investigation, and you can rest assured they will try again with cause # 40-11. There is nothing illegal or wrong in the least with the president withholding foreign aid.

 

I agree with you on all but your statement that the question is whether freezing aid is impeachable (with "impeach" being used in the broader definition of impeached and removed). Freezing aid is not a crime and that is not the charge which the House has accused Trump. The accusation is that Trump's sole motivation for requesting the investigation and freezing aid was to influence and interfere with the outcome of the 2020 election.

It is very difficult to prove someone's sole motivation for a legal behavior. The House has fallen short of that proof and that will be reflected in the Senate's vote on guilt or innocence when they acquit.

 

AFAIK the alleged whistle blower conspiracy is not criminal. I have not heard anyone who said it was.

 

It's part of a conspiracy against the executive branch. The house will never investigate it.

Democrats were making tons of money in Ukraine Trump was threatening to end the gravy train so they attacked him.

 

You have to be kidding are you not?
For starters,
1. Did the whistleblower set this up with Schifforbrains months ago?
2. Is he/she/it a disgruntled obama holdover who plotted Trumps takedown for years?
3. Has he/she/it ever been connected in any way with the Biden's?
4. Has He/she/it ever made it public they wanted to take down the president?
Eric Ciaramella and other enquiring minds want to know.

 

I don't really care. My only objection is that it will drag this whole thing out forever. However, if they are called, there will be a lot of witnesses for the defense called.

 

Has anyone that has turned on Trump been found dead? Has anyone that Trump picked a fight with committed 'suicide'?

On this, I believe you are way off base.

 

A very astute and cogent post. It will sail right over the accusers' heads and vanish in the ether and their emptiness.

 

Unfortunately Rob- you are absolutely right. We can't change that, it's a mental distortion only they can correct. Rebuttal like this is not directed toward that goal- but to exposing it for what it is, so that others not yet biased can see what is really going on. It's a fight for the principles of fair play, because that is critical to the freedom of all of us.

 

And if a public official is proven to have committed corrupt acts, the outcome of their prosecution will be made public. I fail to see how simply (officially) knowing the name of the whistleblower would prove anything about corruption, regardless of who it is.

 

The threat by Republicans to call Schiff, the WB and cohort, and possibly the Bidens looked to me like a bluff and political maneuvering to get enough "No" votes on additional witnesses. It is a bluff which I believe they would followed through on if perchance the Senate votes "Yes" on Bolton, Mulvaney, et. al.

If the Senate were to call the WB, they would be trying to prove that that the entire House impeachment process was built on conspiracy and false allegations (a task I believe is better left to the DOJ). In that event, the Senate might more likely vote for a complete dismissal of the House charges versus an acquittal, and since they have the majority vote, they could certainly do that.

It is far more likely that criminal charges will be filed against Schiff and the WB if the DOJ handles it.

 

Because if the identity is definitively known, his actions can be scrutinized. Positively knowing his identity would open the door for more investigations into his actions, connections, and motivations. As of now, there is still only one speculative news report.

The more that is known, the greater would be the public outcry. Even though the plotters would still likely get away with it, at least it be exposed.

 

It's been a bit insane for practically everyone in the country to keep pretending not to know the identity of the whistleblower.

Suppose you are Eric Ciaramella and you are not the whistleblower. You'd have been lawyered up to the hilt from the day after the RealClear Investigations article named you. You'd be screaming to the press "It's not me!!!!" You'd be looking for any microphone you could get in front of. Instead, the "anonymous" whistleblower's attorneys have threatened to sue anyone who "outs" the "anonymous" whistleblower.

I've never seen anything like this. Everyone's going "We have no idea who the whistleblower is." It's kind of nuts.

Putting the whistleblower's name out in the media now is not going to effect any danger to Eric Ciaramella either way. If anything, having his name whispered everywhere for months and months with no public denial puts him in more danger than if people just speak what's on their minds.

 

The extent to which this identity is being protected is, in itself, a giant red flag.

 

The law regarding with holding aid, something has been done in every presidential administration at least temporarily since we first started giving it, is thought by many scholars to be quite dubious constitutionally in the first place and in the second, specifies a civil not a criminal resolution. In other words by definition it is not in and of itself impeachable.Since the aid was given before the civil action could even be filed it is not then a criminal or impeachable and why he turned it over is immaterial.