The Agonizing Predicament of the Scarcely Protected Whistleblower

[Perknose]

From one who has been there.

"I Was a Whistleblower. The Trump Whistleblower Is About to Go Through Hell.
Retribution, soul-searching, and years of inquiry followed me after I exposed wrongdoing in the intelligence community. Imagine what the person who exposed the president faces."

^^^ Makes what Trump is doing trying to demonize and out this current brave soul all the more dangerous and disgusting.

 

[dainthomas]

What's particularly gross is the NYT trying to expose the person (especially after threats/witness intimidation from the president).

When of course they would never reveal their own sources under any circumstances.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

From one who has been there.

"I Was a Whistleblower. The Trump Whistleblower Is About to Go Through Hell.
Retribution, soul-searching, and years of inquiry followed me after I exposed wrongdoing in the intelligence community. Imagine what the person who exposed the president faces."

^^^ Makes what Trump is doing trying to demonize and out this current brave soul all the more dangerous and disgusting.

What is wrong about being able to confront and question an accuser under oath? Isn't it one of the basic rights under our Constitution?

Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why would you try to deny it to an accused person?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

What is wrong about being able to confront and question an accuser under oath? Isn't it one of the basic rights under our Constitution?

Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why would you try to deny it to an accused person?

Because it’s not a trial.
Would you support giving drug dealers the names & info of people who called the police on them?

 

[Amused]

What is wrong about being able to confront and question an accuser under oath? Isn't it one of the basic rights under our Constitution?

Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why would you try to deny it to an accused person?

Sigh. He's not a witness testifying heresay. He provided hard evidence.

Trump can question his whistleblower (not accuser) Just not know his identity.

Surely you know criminals have a long history of harming witnesses and whistleblowers?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Sigh. He's not a witness testifying heresay. He provided hard evidence.

Trump can question his whistleblower (not accuser) Just not know his identity.

Surely you know criminals have a long history of harming witnesses and whistleblowers?

All this alleged whistleblower did is supply hearsay. None of his/her information was first hand knowledge. You make the huge jump that the accused is a criminal and do it without proof, evidence or witnesses.

 

[JTsyo]

What is wrong about being able to confront and question an accuser under oath? Isn't it one of the basic rights under our Constitution?

Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why would you try to deny it to an accused person?

He's not the accuser. He's not bringing charges against the President. The government hopefully will be the accuser. He's a whistleblower that is bringing wrongdoing to the attention of the government so that it can investigate. As such he's entitled to protection.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

If a CEO were to say the fraction of what Trump and company have said about this whistleblower specifically they would have been thrown out on their ass by their board immediately. What Trump is doing is dangerous. Full stop.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

He's not the accuser. He's not bringing charges against the President. The government hopefully will be the accuser. He's a whistleblower that is bringing wrongdoing to the attention of the government so that it can investigate. As such he's entitled to protection.

Where does it say that they can't be identified or questioned by anyone they accuse? I can see where they can't be retaliated against, but questioned? identified? testify in public? under oath?

 

[akenbennu]

So how long do we have to wait before Giuliani, Barr and Pompeo are subpoenaed to appear before a closed door intel committee hearing?

All this alleged whistleblower did is supply hearsay. None of his/her information was first hand knowledge. You make the huge jump that the accused is a criminal and do it without proof, evidence or witnesses.

Actually there was a statement issued yesterday that the whistleblower did have first hand knowledge of the events.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Where does it say that they can't be identified or questioned by anyone they accuse? I can see where they can't be retaliated against, but questioned? identified? testify in public? under oath?

Other than Protecting the Presidents feelz what benefit would that have?

 

[interchange]

What is wrong about being able to confront and question an accuser under oath? Isn't it one of the basic rights under our Constitution?

Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why would you try to deny it to an accused person?

The whistleblower is not Trump's accuser. Any collected physical evidence or witness testimony at trial would be his accuser. There is no trial. If this inquiry makes it to the Senate for a trial as an impeached President, he will have the right to face his accusers. Those accusers will be the collected evidence presented against him including transcripts he has provided and any witnesses such as Cohen, Maguire, etc. who may present evidence against him. He will and should have the opportunity to confront them.

The whistleblower complaint will not be a primary source of evidence for Trump's actions. It is equivalent to a tip called into the FBI. It will be part of things as handling of the complaint is material to the allegations, however the accusers in this case will be recordings of Trump, his tweets, and any direct witnesses to his statements and actions. He will and should have every right to face those accusers.

Even should the whistleblower come forward and provide relevant testimony at trial, Trump will have the chance to confront them at that time.

However, at this time Trump is calling loudly for efforts to unmask him and render punitive consequences to him. When a person confronts their accusers on their own terms outside of a trial, this is called the crime of witness tampering.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Other than Protecting the Presidents feelz what benefit would that have?

To try to find out if his/her information is accurate and backed by evidence? To see if they just made something up for political reasons?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

To try to find out if his/her information is accurate and backed by evidence? To see if they just made something up for political reasons?

Isn't that what the investigation is for?
I know you don’t like it because it will be a primarily D run instigation but hey I wasn’t happy about the mostly R run BENGHAZI!!! or but her email investigations.

Sorry for the edit, if the person is revealed who gets to decide if the information is accurate? Isn’t that the Inspector Generals job?

 

[Perknose]

When a person confronts their accusers on their own terms outside of a trial, this is called the crime of witness tampering.

^^^ This.

 

[Paratus]

To try to find out if his/her information is accurate and backed by evidence? To see if they just made something up for political reasons?

It was investigated by the IG and found credible and an Urgent Concern. Follow up investigation was by law to be done by congress.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The whistleblower is not their accuser. There is no trial. If this inquiry makes it to the Senate for a trial as an impeached President, he will have the right to face his accusers. Those accusers will be the collected evidence presented against him including transcripts he has provided and any witnesses such as Cohen, Maguire, etc. who may present evidence against him.

The whistleblower complaint will not be a source of evidence for Trump's actions. It will be part of things as handling of the complaint is material to the allegations, however the accusers in this case will be recordings of Trump, his tweets, and any direct witnesses to his statements and actions. He will and should have every right to face those accusers.

Even should the whistleblower come forward and provide relevant testimony at trial, Trump will have the chance to confront them at that time.

However, at this time Trump is calling loudly for efforts to unmask him and render punitive consequences to him. When a person confronts their accusers on their own terms outside of a trial, this is called the crime of witness tampering.

I think you're stretching way too far on this.
Of course the whistleblower is an accuser.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It was investigated by the IG and found credible and an Urgent Concern. Follow up investigation was by law to be done by congress.

However the Justice Department found that no crime had been committed.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

^^^ This.

Law?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yea, the whistleblower is gonna get wrecked, if he/she sets up a gofundme, I'll toss in a $20.

 

[akenbennu]

However the Justice Department found that no crime had been committed.

Considering Barr is on the list of people potentially accused, you'll forgive me if I don't give that opinion any credence.

 

[JTsyo]

Where does it say that they can't be identified or questioned by anyone they accuse? I can see where they can't be retaliated against, but questioned? identified? testify in public? under oath?

You also cannot make the disclosure anonymously, although you can request that the OSC keep your identity confidential.

 

[interchange]

I think you're stretching way too far on this.
Of course the whistleblower is an accuser.

There is no trial. There are no accusers in the legal sense until there is a trial. At that time, the defendant only has the right to confront whatever evidence is presented. For example, if a rape case has sufficient physical evidence and supporting witnesses to prove that the rape occurred, the rape victim does not have to appear. They aren't allowed to release a statement or testify without being cross-examined, but the fact they may have given police the cause to investigate whether a rape occurred against them does not make them an accuser in the legal sense.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You also cannot make the disclosure anonymously, although you can request that the OSC keep your identity confidential.

Thanks you for this, from your link:
" In order to show a substantial likelihood of wrongdoing under the Whistleblower Protection Act, you must provide reliable, first-hand knowledge of the misconduct. Speculation or second-hand information is not enough. You also cannot make the disclosure anonymously, although you can request that the OSC keep your identity confidential. "

"REQUEST" and of course "FIRSTHAND"

 

[interchange]

Law?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)
influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2)cause or induce any personto—
(A)
withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B)
alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C)
evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D)
be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3)
hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.