That’s probably because it wasn’t there. No one ever claimed it was supposed to be anonymous. For that matter, the whistleblower doesn’t have any sort of blanket guarantee of anonymity either.
I don’t believe I’m “denigrating” her. I’m simply pointing out that her accusation, which was the central focus of a political squabble, exposed a family to death threats. FWIW, she received death threats too, and I don’t think those were deserved either.
Yeah, that isn’t what happened, but see my comment about questioning your source of news if this is what you take away from the controversy.
But you don’t care, because Kavanaugh…?
Assuming the whistleblower is indeed an employee (or contractor) of the CIA, they do have a guarantee of protection from reprisals.
Thanks for confirming that it’s nothing more than a political smear campaign, and has nothing to do with the actual recorded testimony from direct witnesses under oath, who have said that Trump’s call to the president of Ukraine was indeed to tell him to announce an investigation into Biden, otherwise he would not get military aid.
So. Do you think that it is appropriate for a president to threaten to withhold congressionally approved military aid, unless a country promises to announce and investigation into his political rival? Because this is what happened. We have heard this. From direct witnesses. Under oath.
Apples and roller coasters. Kavanaugh was already in the public eye as a SCOTUS nominee. Not that death threats are in any way acceptable, but when you accept a SCOTUS nomination you also accept the visibility.
The WB never volunteered to be a public figure, and making them* into one – when Trump has already suggested they be executed as a spy – puts their life in jeopardy.
(*No idea of the WB’s gender, and too lazy to rework sentence for proper neutrality.)
A friend of mine saw Kavanaugh at the World Series. He had a large security detail to look after him and his family. Wonder if the U.S. Marshals are looking after Dr. Ford, or this whistleblower?
You blamed her for death threats for nothing more than talking about her own experiences. That’s misogynistic, rape-enabling, denigrating bullshit.
I’d refer you back to post #4249.
"A U.S. ambassador’s cellphone call to President Trump from a restaurant in the capital of Ukraine this summer was a stunning breach of security, exposing the conversation to surveillance by foreign intelligence services, including Russia’s, former U.S. officials said.
…
“The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone” asking U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland about “the investigations,” Taylor testified, referring to the president’s desire for a probe of the son of Trump’s potential political opponent in 2020, Joe Biden, and the Ukrainian energy company on whose board Hunter Biden once served.
Sondland, Taylor said, told Trump in that conversation that “the Ukrainians were ready to move forward” on the investigations.
The U.S. Embassy staffer who overheard the call, political counselor David Holmes, is scheduled to testify Friday before House impeachment investigators in a closed session.
“The security ramifications are insane — using an open cellphone to communicate with the president of the United States,” said Larry Pfeiffer, a former senior director of the White House Situation Room and a former chief of staff to the CIA director. “In a country that is so wired with Russian intelligence, you can almost take it to the bank that the Russians were listening in on the call.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ambassadors-cellphone-call-to-trump-from-kyiv-restaurant-was-a-stunning-breach-of-security-former-officials-say/ar-BBWIh4E
But when a whistleblower uses his position to bring the truth to light, that needs an investigation.
It’s so transparent that facts don’t matter in this case – Trump supporters want to win in 2020, as you said, so anything to achieve that goal is good.
OK so you admit that the identity and possible partisanship of the whistle blower has no actual bearing on the veracity and severity of the charges against Trump, and that there sole use would be to fool voters into accepting an ad hominem fallacy.
Republican policy in a nutshell: Provided you can fool some of the people all of the time, you’re golden.
Corollary: Getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar is perfectly okay as long as you have yet to take any cookies.
“Two embassy staffers in Kyiv, not just one, overheard a phone call in which President Donald Trump asked EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland about “the investigations,””
Nah, they don’t even care about that stuff. They just want to see how many responses they can get when they state the same things over and over. They are disruptors. They do not further, deepen, or advance the discussion. Their contentless back-and-forths never get anywhere except to occupy page after page of repetition without moving forward one millimeter.
The crime is bribery:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/democrats-bribery-impeachment-pelosi-schiff
Bribery is mentioned in the Constitution as a specific reason for impeachment. The evidence so far (including the transcript released by the White House) indicates that Trump was attempting to bribe the Ukrainians into making a public announcement meant to damage a political rival.
Here’s a scenario and a couple of questions that I’d like HurricaneDitka and **Max **to consider. For the rest of you, I don’t need answers, as I’m pretty sure I know where most folks stand.
Consider this:
A CEO of a corporation is wanting a zoning variance. He also is a major player in a large bank in the community. One of the town council members is in arrears with his mortgage at the bank.
CEO calls up council member:
CEO : “Nice to talk to you Bob.”
Council member: “I’m really hoping you can cut me some slack on my mortgage - I will have everything sorted in a couple of months”
CEO: “First I’d like to ask you a favor. You know that project of mine? The one stuck in zoning limbo? It would sure be great if you could sort that out for me.”
CM: “Ummmm sure…”
CEO: "That would be great. You know I’ve had my issues with the rest of council. You could really help me out here, you know what I mean?
CM: “Yes, yes I’ll see what I can do”
CEO: “We’ll talk about that mortgage thing soon, Mkay?”
A few people from the corporation are in on the call. They talk to some of their underlings about their concerns as it seems that extortion might just be happening.
Someone who has heard things calls the cops. Let’s call him “WB” He tells them what has happened. They were not in on the call - they just heard that it was not good. Plus some details. WB says he does not want his name revealed because he does not want to get fired.
The police open an investigation. They interview the people who were on the call. They get a transcript of the call. The details of the extortion are coming into focus. Witnesses who were in on the call tell the investigators that there was no question in their mind that CEO was pressuring Council Member to “fix” his zoning problem, by holding up his mortgage. More witnesses testify that the CEO had actually sent his personal lawyer to talk to friends of the Council Member, telling him that he’d better think very hard about the zoning issue, and that his mortgage was going to be in trouble if he did not.
The CEO says “NO QUID PRO QUO! PERFECT CALL!” The CEO calls his good friend, the police chief to get his men to stop the investigation. The CEO forbids his people to talk to the police.
Questions:
1, In this scenario, is the CEO entitled to find out who WB is during the investigation? Even if he just wants to use him in a PR battle in the media, and accuse WB of “secret partisan bias”
2. Is the CEO entitled to find out who WB is during the trial, assuming that WB is not called by the prosecution as a witness (after all, WB did not directly witness anything.)
3. If the CEO has forbidden his employees to cooperate with the police investigation, can he be charged with other crimes such as obstruction of justice?
4. Is it appropriate at this point in the investigation for the Police Chief to get involved, and tell the investigators what to do?
IN which you said:
Which does not answer the question. I did not ask if Biden should be investigated throroughly.
I asked: Do you think that it is appropriate for a president to threaten to withhold congressionally approved military aid, unless a country promises to announce and investigation into his political rival?
They. Do. Not. Care.
How many times do you need to hear this?