That name has been floating around news sites for the last couple weeks, just not the left leaning ones. This is not news. Also, if true, it will be demonstrated that the guy is connected in various ways to the democrats and has politically motivated reasons for blowing the whistle. Since he wasn't first party witness to the Trump Ukraine call, he isn't really a whistle blower, in the classic or protected sense. He needs to be subpoenaed to testify under oath. There is no law, that I know of, that says his name can't be known.
The whistleblower indicated both first and second hand knowledge. First hand knowledge is not actually required at all but erroneously reported on as the older form to submit a complaint incorrectly indicated it was required. Regardless, the whistleblower had first-hand knowledge anyway, but we're not sure of which parts of his complaint. It isn't necessary that he was a witness to the call. What matters is that the complaint was deemed urgent and credible by the IG, and thus far I'm not aware of anything it included which has not been corroborated. It doesn't actually matter at this point if it has even significant inaccuracies or bias. The safeguard in bringing this to Congress is the IG. After he rendered his opinion, Congress has authority to investigate whatever they feel is worth investigating and will use the products of that investigation (documents and testimony) to pursue any action against Trump, not the whistleblower report.
Good to know that you support criminal behavior just because you believe that everyone is as partisan as you are.That name has been floating around news sites for the last couple weeks, just not the left leaning ones. This is not news. Also, if true, it will be demonstrated that the guy is connected in various ways to the democrats and has politically motivated reasons for blowing the whistle. Since he wasn't first party witness to the Trump Ukraine call, he isn't really a whistle blower, in the classic or protected sense. He needs to be subpoenaed to testify under oath. There is no law, that I know of, that says his name can't be known.
Fixed that first sentence to reflect reality.That name has been floating around the right wing opinion sites for the last couple weeks, just not the real news organization ones.
I like the part where you say ‘no law that I know of’. A number of people have reacted to your post with less than enthusiastic support. Maybe you could ask yourself what might incline you to see as you do also.That name has been floating around news sites for the last couple weeks, just not the left leaning ones. This is not news. Also, if true, it will be demonstrated that the guy is connected in various ways to the democrats and has politically motivated reasons for blowing the whistle. Since he wasn't first party witness to the Trump Ukraine call, he isn't really a whistle blower, in the classic or protected sense. He needs to be subpoenaed to testify under oath. There is no law, that I know of, that says his name can't be known.
Yes, other than for political reasons it's baffling as to why anyone thinks the whistleblower or any potential bias matters. Say I hate someone and am irredeemably biased against them but I see them robbing a bank and call 911. If the cops then show up and catch them in the act of robbing the bank it doesn't matter that I hated them, as the substance of my report was confirmed true. I would also never be called to testify against the person because the cops would instead.
WB admitted he isn't first party witness to all of the allegation. IG said claims are credible and urgent. Is the IG in on it too?That name has been floating around news sites for the last couple weeks, just not the left leaning ones. This is not news. Also, if true, it will be demonstrated that the guy is connected in various ways to the democrats and has politically motivated reasons for blowing the whistle. Since he wasn't first party witness to the Trump Ukraine call, he isn't really a whistle blower, in the classic or protected sense. He needs to be subpoenaed to testify under oath. There is no law, that I know of, that says his name can't be known.
Nonsense. This is a death warrant. He needn't testify to anything as the proof was offered by Trump. The crime is comitted and confessed to. I READ THE TRANSCRIPT.That name has been floating around news sites for the last couple weeks, just not the left leaning ones. This is not news. Also, if true, it will be demonstrated that the guy is connected in various ways to the democrats and has politically motivated reasons for blowing the whistle. Since he wasn't first party witness to the Trump Ukraine call, he isn't really a whistle blower, in the classic or protected sense. He needs to be subpoenaed to testify under oath. There is no law, that I know of, that says his name can't be known.
Yea but... reality isnt what it used to be so...Isn't that a clear crime?
Hey I’m no expert but didn’t something similar happen with Bush and isn’t there some kind of penalty to leaking a security cleared persons name?
I’m not sure if that applies to regular citizens.
Stupid maneuver, and pointless. The fellows name has been floating around for a couple of weeks, anyone who wants to know who it is can google it.
Why junior felt the need to share it is beyond me.
I was under the impression that was the WH mantra.You forgot to mention petty, shameful & vindictive. Or morally depraved, for that matter.
Big deal, i posted about Eric Ciaramella in this forum on Oct. 23rd. No law against it.
Actually there is a law against a federal employee releasing that information. You can't be punished but the person who leaked it certainly should be.Big deal, i posted about Eric Ciaramella in this forum on Oct. 23rd. No law against it.