Why does the whistleblower's identity matter?

You still don't have a clue, huh?

You do realize that Trumpers continue pretending there's "not enough evidence" only because Bolton, Mulvaney, the OMB officials, Pompeo, Giuliani, Pence, Trump, Perry, Kupperman, et. al. don't testify, and all the documents/records the House has requested is locked up by Trump...even though there has already been more than ample evidence.

Please stop pretending and just admit you like having a career criminal in the Oval Office. Not a single argument yet presented exonerates Trump's abuse of office & corruption from day one in the White House.

 

Um...and what single thing you posted has anything to do with Trump's abuse of office? All evidence thus far presented has corroborated the accusations against Trump.

Schiff and the whistleblower could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, collude with Russia/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/UAE/Egypt/Turkey, and enrich themselves with taxpayer funds and it still won't change Trump's corruption & abuse of office.

 

His name is Eric Ciaramella. Its known all over DC, and has been known from the start. They want it kept out of the news because he is a Democrat CIA employee who worked on Biden's campaign. They dont want him questioned about his conferences with Shiff and team as he prepared his document.
That help?

 

Maybe you should re-read the OP and stick to the question asked.

 

I did. I answered the OP's question in my reply to your post. The answer is...the whistleblower's ID does NOT matter because he has ZERO relevance (now) to Trump's abuse of power.

Did you not pick that up?

 

Well, they are not. It is also relevant the the whistle blower's whistle blowing was entirely improper and outside the scope of the Act.

 

The whistleblower should remain anonymous. The Republicans want to punish this person. If the identity of the whistleblower is revealed, people are going to be reluctant to come forward in the future.

 

So we can find out if the person had proper security clearance and a need to know. Who leaked it to him. With whom he discussed and did he have the authority and clearance.

It all started with him were there to have been new witnesses in the trial he should have been numero uno.

 

The entire impeachment had to do with Trumps alleged motive. Of course Hunter Biden and his activities and apparent corruption were central to that and he should have been witness numero dos.

 

Wrong again. The whistleblower is the individual that manufactured this "crisis". In this country, you are innocent until proven guilts. Because some asshat comes forward with a claim and then runs away is not the way we do things.
What is relevant is the fact the malcontent democrats filed again and will now have to invent yet another scheme to get rid of Trump before he is swept into office by working Americans.

 

I don't really care who the whistleblower is. I would just like to be convinced that one exists. I find it hard to believe in an impeachment process that came about due to an anonymous source. Everything that the democrats have brought to the table did not require a whistleblower. Why did they wait? I see this whole process as nothing more than partisan politics at its finest. It reinforces what i have believed for the past 20 years. We need to be rid of political parties.

 

If someone accused you of being something you're not, will you be OK with that?

 

Okay. Great. Someone look into that. But what does it have to do with the impeachment inquiry? Let's say that the person did not have the proper security clearance. Does that mean that whatever the president did is not an impeachable offense?

 

If someone reported me for committing a crime, and prosecutors were using testimony from that person as evidence that I committed the crime, then I would be entitled to know the identity of the accuser so I could cross-examine him. The Constitution guarantees that. But the whistleblower is not being used as evidence that Trump committed an impeachable offense. All he or she did was report the offense. Furthermore, this is not a criminal proceeding. President Trump is not facing jail time. So the Sixth Amendment is not implicated here.

I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. See above.

 

Let's say one does not exist. How does learning that information help us decide whether the president has committed an impeachable offense?

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your dumb theory is true and that it's all a big conspiracy. How does that help us decide whether the president's conduct was an impeachable offense?

 

At least you are giving me a straight answer, even though I disagree. If the republicans don't dispute what Trump did (few of them publicly admit this by the way) but they think that his conduct is not an impeachable offense, then why do they need to know the identity of the whistleblower to reachj that determination?

And the only reason that this is a victimless crime is that Trump's plan was exposed before it could happen. It would not have been a victimless crime if Trump had gotten away with using public funds to advance his political ambitions. I don't believe that everybody does it but if they do they deserve to be impeached too.

 

Let's assume all of this idiocy is true and it's one big conspiracy to bring down Trump. How does this knowledge help us decide whether Trump's undisputed conduct is an impeaching offense?

 

If someone reported me for a crime and that person was testifying in a criminal proceeding that I committed the crime I would be entitled under the sixth amendment to know that person's identity so I could cross-examine him or her. But the whistleblower is not testifying against Trump. And the impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.

 

The whistleblower laws guarantee job protection for reporting, it doesn't guarantee anonymity.

"But the whistleblower is not being used as evidence that Trump committed an impeachable offense."

Because there is NO impeachable offense. Please name the criminal statutes Trump violated?

 

There is no impeachable offense alleged, which explains why Trump didn't need fact witnesses to defeat the case against him. He just needed legal scholars.

This is the WH visitor log, not idiocy. If you can muster the ability to think independently, you can chase down all the players, including the host, Ciaramella, and discover what the WH meeting on January 19, 2016 was about:

 

They don't need to know the identity of the whistleblower. They just want to know so they know whom to attack. Apparently that is how politics works.

Who would have been the victim? I can't think of one. All politicians attempt to gain political advantage with every word and deed. Attempting to impeach Trump for this nonsense is just as unwarranted as attempting to impeach Clinton for lying about a sexual tryst. Common sense is still sensible.

 

It may not matter. What does matter is factual evidence and context. Then the question comes up as to why did the democrats think they needed a whistle blower to bring charges if they already had what they needed? Why wait? For political gain? For an advantage against a rival?

I don't have a dog in the hunt. I don't trust any of them. Republican or democrat. Both sides are playing this out to maintain status quo with the people. I believe that neither side wants witnesses because that will lead to some very uncomfortable truths that neither side can afford. Trump is a wildcard. Neither side wants him in office. It wouldn't surprise me if the outcome was pre determined not unlike some kind of pro wrestling event. The RNC and DNC have to go if we are ever to any shred of integrity to our government. The parties run the country and have brilliantly used the media to split the electorate.

 

Nonsense. Your question was "why does the whistleblowers identity matter", and my response was...

"It matters for the precise reason that the confrontation clause in the 6th Amendment was enacted. It gives the accused the right to confront and cross examine the witness against them."

My response to you did not in any manner say that the 6th amendment automatically applies. Rather, it said that it matters for the same reason that the confrontation clause in the 6th amendment was enacted, which is that it gives the accused the right to confront and examine the witness against them. There is a specific reason why that clause was enacted, and that same specific reason is "why it matters" now.

Therefore, if anyone in this conversation that does not know what they are talking about, it would clearly be you. You asked a question, and I gave you a correct answer. You on the other hand are arguing against a point that I did not make. If I had said that the 6th amendment applies then your response would be 100% correct, but since I did not, your response is a strawman.

 

So you're the type that can accept someone making a false or valid claim about you, then being interrogated by say family social services, and all your children, their teachers, your friends and family without even knowing who was the person that got that whole ball of shlt rolling LMFAO.

Good nuff for you I suppose, hardly the kind of thing I would accept, then again Americans come as sheep and wolves too ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯