I’m not sure why you consider the whistleblower’s identity irrelevant, you’re the one who brought it up!
I do have to wonder if the Russians have kompromat of one kind or another on a large percentage of Republican Congresspeople.
Is it tin foil hat to wonder how many of them may have been involved with Epstein?
Here’s a couple of sources you can read.
Federalist - Schiff’s Committee Published Name Of Alleged Whistleblower Last Week
RealClearInvestigations - The Beltway’s ‘Whistleblower’ Furor Obsesses Over One Name
So,
*As noted by NPR, “the movement of its money between accounts could make it difficult, if not impossible, to track how the money is spent since it is not isolated or sequestered.”
In the letter to (Sen. Ron) Wyden, the NRA said that it did “receive funds from foreign persons only for purposes not connected to elections, as permitted by federal law.” And it acknowledged that some of the money in accounts containing foreign donations is moved into accounts used to fund political campaigns in the U.S.*
A gun rights group serving as a money laundry for foreign interests. Not a problem. No, no, not at all.
Got any reliable sources?
Who cares who the whistleblower is (except those interested in punishing anyone who opposes Trump)? Everything relevant they said was confirmed by other sources and witnesses. Even if they “colluded” with the Democrats (what does that even mean? Is cooperation “collusion”?), the WB report was factual, according to the other witnesses and sources. Government employees should be encouraged to come forward with facts they find disturbing, not discouraged. Outing the WB discourages future WBs.
Who the fuck cares? It could have been Chelsea Clinton for all it really matters. If a some punk calls the cops to let them know about a drug shipment coming in, and the Feds find 50 kilos of cocaine, does the cocaine disappear just because the punk was working for a rival dealer?
There is one reason to learn the identity of the whistle blower, and that is to punish him so that no one else comes forward. There are millions of armed MAGA hats out there, some of them not too stable, and their leader told them
he might as well have commented, will no one rid me of this turbulent whistleblower.
Even incognito he has already gotten multiple death threats, whats going to happen to him if his face is plastered all over fox news.
Guys, for alk we know Trump himself is the whistleblower, because he wanted to show us all what a perfect statesman he is. He didn’t get enough credit for disarming North Korea and landing an even better Iran deal, so he “leaked” his own perfect call!
HD, go into traffic court and argue before the judge that he cannot convict you until he tells you the full name and home address of the officer which pulled you over.
Let us know what happens, k, thx, bye!
It’s not that, I think. It’s cult 101.
The charismatic leader cares only about his own aggrandizement, and will drive the cult farther and farther into extremism in order to maintain the structure. He ties everyone else’s fate to his own.
The cultists have transformed their social network into a network comprised entirely of other cultists. Social status is gained in part by enthusiastic participation in the cult rituals. Questioning the cult results in ostracism. One of the cult rituals consists of that ostracism, and enthusiastically ostracizing apostates contributes to stature.
The cultist’s second-tier leaders might personally object to his behavior, but whatever power they had before, now all their sway is linked to the cult leader. If they step out of line, the cult leader repudiates them, leading to the cultists’ repudiating them as well.
The system reinforces itself at all levels. It’s really difficult to get people out of a cult, and it’s really difficult to disband a cult through normal measures.
I think learning the whistleblower’s identity can provide us with useful information about their political motivations, biases, background, and history.
Actually, that’s not a great analogy. If the cop who pulled you over doesn’t testify, you have a very good chance of going free.
But if the cop pulled you over because someone reported you for swerving all over the road, and you blow a 0.20 on your DUI test, and you say, “But you can’t convict me because I didn’t hit anyone, and anyway I demand to confront the person who called 911 on me,” the judge will laugh in your face.
Ooh, and their shoe size! And what their favorite pizza topping is! And whether they like pirates or ninjas better!
I mean, as long as we’re talking about things we could learn that have nothing to do with figuring out whether the president committed impeachable offenses.
I’m not asking for his home address, but the right to face one’s accuser is a hallmark of our criminal justice system, and so I’d hope the judge would tell me the full name of the officer who pulled me over. I’d encourage you to go read the 6th Amendment, k, thx, bye!
Why is it so hard to understand that Trump is incredibly popular among Republican voters? He has 85% approval among Republican primary voters.
And for the most part, what politicians care about is getting re-elected. And if you lose the primary, you can’t get re-elected.
If all this really meant anything to you, you would have been swayed by Taylor’s and Kent’s testimony today.
IDK what one has to do to be more credible than those two.
Once there is a confession, and other evidence of the crime, the prosecution can go forward without the guy who made the first phone call. Trump (and his team) can face all the accusers who are testifying against him. That’s all that due process requires. (and even that isn’t required in an impeachment proceeding). And, as stated repeatedly, there is no reason to question the whistleblower if you’re admitting the allegations. The only question is whether such conduct merits removal from office. I think it clearly does. Some Republicans will probably disagree (or at least pretend to).
And if you actually bothered to read and argue from Constitutional principles, you would know not to make such an argument about the grand jury portion of the Impeachment process. Trump’s people can call for their accuser in the actual trial. If John Roberts allows it, that is, as he very well may not.
If the whistleblower is a Fed, keeping them anonymous keeps the administration from violating even more laws. They’ve already made threats.
“Without the assurance of confidentiality, many whistleblowers will simply refuse to come forward.”
Do this man’s words mean nothing to you?