I’ve seen some suggestions that the whistleblower be called to testify at the impeachment trial.
What kind of protections does the whistleblower have with regards to the impeachment trial? Can they be subpoenaed despite the Senate (I assume) not knowing who they are? Obviously someone and probably more than one person knows who they are. Can the Senate require one of them to disgorge that information?
Can any Trump defender tell me why it is important to know who the WB is or why he/she should testify? And, while you are at it, explain why the Bidens should be called as witnesses. I’ll hold my breath now.
I’m not a trump defender but I’ll take a run at it.
The argument seems to be that if Trump was actively hunting corruption then he is free to use any means necessary and in this case the corrupt bastards just happened to be his political opponents. If the Bidens admit to being corrupt in the impeachment trial then all of trumps actions are immediately justified.
As for the whistleblower it seems to be a case of the right to cross examine your accuser. In this case trump was accused of doing something impeachable by an anonymous party and if they can put that party on the witness stand we may find out that they are la lying bastard who’s only motivation was to seek retribution on trump and similarly to the Russian collusion if the reason the investigation was started is questionable then all of the results of the investigation are questionable as well.
Whistleblowers are not accusers, they are people that inform the appropriate channels of misconduct and potentially trigger an investigation.
If Trump was hunting corruption then he was to inform the DOJ and allow the department to begin an investigation that may or may not involved the government of a different country.
How these are even questions is staggering.
Although I do not want the whistleblower identified or to be called to testify because I believe that Trump et al are just that vindictive, that sounds an awful lot like a witness. However, the witness in this case has no information as to whether or not Trump abused his power that hasn’t been put forth by public testimony.
Trump defender hat back on:
There is no way that a whistleblower isn’t an accuser. They literally go to the appropriate channels and accuse someone of wrong doing. I don’t see any difference between a guy a work calling the anonymous HR line and saying I think Joe is embezzling $100K and a girl going to the cops and saying I think Joe raped Sally. In both cases it triggers an investigation and it could be different it we know that Joe is bsnging the first guy’s wife or had just dumped the second girl but we can’t know that without knowing who those people are.
DOJ has no authority to investigate corruption in Ukraine. If Trump was concerned the proper people to do the investigation were the Ukrainian government so he went to the proper authority to launch the investigation. Since Trump can’t command the Ukrainians to do anything he had to use the only means at his command their funding. It is totally all worth it though if the Bidens are guilty.
Whistleblowers are not accusers. Not. The guy who called 911 because that house over there is on fire- no one ever asks who called. They just go put out the fucking fire. I called the cops when I saw some dudes climbing on top of my favorite liquor store. The cops showed up with a truck thad had a ladder, and guess what? My part was done as soon as I hung up the phone.
Trump supporter’s hat on:
That’s not quite true. See what the Seville Police Department thinks is:
So if you just call the police and walk away then nothing is going to happen unless the person you accused is caught red handed.
Let’s try this with a definition from Google Accuse:
1: charge (someone) with an offense or crime.
2: claim that (someone) has done something wrong.
Back to your roof example. If you called the cops and said two people were on the roof of the building having a tea party the cops aren’t going to show up. You have to imply or claim that someone is or has done something wrong for the cops to show up. That is an accusation. If the cops show up and you’re not willing to do anything more then they let the person go unless they caught them in the act.
While the whistleblower is technically an accuser, he’s not the only one. If he were, then yes, he’d likely have to come forth during the trial. But various other people have come forth, most recently John Bolton. So no one needs to know who the whistleblower is and there’s no need for him to testify.
Yeah, it’s really actually true. It happened. I was there. And if the fellas were having a tea party they were trespassing while doing so, and the cops saw it. They’re witness to it. No one asked me jack shit after I hung up the phone. Fact. Not alternative fact.
No.
You call the police to give them information. They then act on it. It’s up to the police to decide what to do once they arrive. Not you.
The whistleblower gave out information. It was up to other authorities to act on their information. They are not accusers. Period.
So, I guess the Trump supporters are saying that if anyone in law enforcement ever decided to solicit anonymous tips and developed a mechanism to protect the identity of the tipsters, that would be totally unconstitutional? And wrong, and an affront to the rights of criminals everywhere?
So there would never be a well publicized nationwide program with a phone number and official forms and to facilitate anonymity and billboards encouraging criminals to rat out their cohorts, right? Because that would be totally unconstitutional.
https://www.crimestoppersusa.org/contact/submit-a-tip/
Good God, the Gangster Clown Posse is ridiculous.
Using the liquor store analogy - a person calls the cops and says “There are people hanging around the back door in the dark with a crow bar. I think they might be breaking in.” The cops show up and, lo and behold, there are two guys wearing latex gloves walking away from the back door with a crow bar and there are pry marks around the lock. The cops arrest them and charge them with attempted burglary. Are you saying the defendants have a constitutional right to know who called the cops? And, by the way, are they guilty of nothing because they saw the cops coming and walked away without getting in?
[quote=“Oredigger77, post:3, topic:847101”]
I’m not a trump defender but I’ll take a run at it.
The argument seems to be that if Trump was actively hunting corruption then he is free to use any means necessary and in this case the corrupt bastards just happened to be his political opponents. If the Bidens admit to being corrupt in the impeachment trial then all of trumps actions are immediately justified.
IF Trump was actually hunting corruption. This is a false premise or at least there is no evidence to support it. So, right there the explanation falls flat. Even if he was, he is not free to use any means necessary. Any LEGAL means, perhaps, but not ANY means. The ends cannot justify the means.
The identity of the whistle blower is not a secret. Everyone who cares to know who it is, knows it.
If he was to be called he could try to negotiate protection but it is unlikely he would get much as he doesn’t have any leverage. However, he still has the same whistle blower protection as every other government employee.
As a criminal defense attorney, I routinely see investigations that begin with a "confidential informant’, who usually provides a reason for police to start surveilling a business, or following a person, or asking questions of potential witnesses.
Eventually, the case gets to me, where it’s my job to try to quash the fruits of the investigation. One argument is that the investigation was initiated due to a potentially unreliable source who may have had ulterior motives.
Guess what? That never ever works. The fact that an unnamed person led the police to start snooping around is always irrelevant if the snooping led them to find out that criminal activity was underway. Why the police became suspicious is irrelevant.
Of course, the criminals always want to know who the rat is. But their reason is simply retribution, not because that revelation will be the key to unraveling the prosecution.
(Emphasis added)
The Seville Police Department are deceiving you to try to get you to cooperate, because it’s always easier for cops when they get witnesses coming to them instead of having to find them. But ‘it is quite possible’ a criminal will get away because you didn’t do your civic duty when you chose to remain anonymous is a bunch of bullshit.
In actuality, if the cops get an anonymous call, they would go out, and if the caller provided details that matched the observations the cops saw, it would be a basis to further the investigation. And it would be the results of that investigation that would be the basis of the criminal charge.
Now, of course, if there was no other evidence other than a 911 caller, that wouldn’t be enough (but, that’s true even if we have the person’s name; just because you call the police on somebody doesn’t mean you are always telling the truth).
But suppose the cops are called about the guy going through the car, and when they arrive they see two people both in red shirts, both of whom could match the description. At that point, the cops are going to speak to both people, since the anonymous caller gave them a reason to do so. Now, suppose one seems nervous and furtive, so the cop (concerned for his safety) pats him down and finds a screwdriver and a bunch of loose change in his pockets. The other guy points out he lives two doors down. There is a busted door handle on the neighbor’s car and paint chips on the edge of the screwdriver match the color of that car. Do you really think the anonymous 911 caller tanked the case?
The fuck they don’t. Not only did they get my information when I called in a fire around the corner at 3:00 AM, when they subsequently visited me, they were pretty damned accusatory with their line of questioning.
I agree that whistle blowers do differ from some types of accusers. Whistle blowers are typically insiders, thus needing additional protections from retribution. I guess you could argue that simply handing over documents that increment someone aren’t accusations, but I’m not sure I care about the semantics nearly as much as that the protections are in place and followed through.
Being that the OP is really just asking a question that seems to have been answered, could I mention another thing about the whistle blower and the trial: The other day, Lindsay Graham said he didn’t think the whistle blower should be revealed now, but only possibly later down the road. Rand Paul obviously wants him to be outed. What’s up with that? Graham is a huge Trump supporter. Paul has gone against Trump on some fairly substantial items: he is against what Trump did to the Iran nuclear deal, did not agree with his Syria missile strike, wants to limit Trump’s war powers, etc. I know this is crazy, but maybe Graham doesn’t want the whistle blower revealed because he thinks this will look bad for Trump, and Paul wants him revealed for the same reason. I don’t think this is likely, it’s just that it’s kinda weird that they don’t agree on this.
THey are both aware that the wb has no relevance except to misinform the base, and create obfuscation. We’re not talking about high school freshmen here. They may disagree on a point, or they could be making dust swirl around together.
Graham is more a part of the swamp and Paul is more of a swamp drainer. He’d like to expose the backroom coordination with the WB and Graham would prefer to preserve his ability to make backroom deals with future WBs himself.