“Paul is more of a swamp drainer.” Not anymore. He made a choice which was on ample display this week. There are no drainers in the rebupkis anymore, if there ever were. (There never were)
I’m among those who don’t care to know who it is, because I don’t. I just read news reports and they are careful not to give out any names.
I’m not sure it has been answered, but maybe I missed something. I was looking for a legal answer in the OP, and I don’t think anyone’s provided one. There’ve been some political answers, but those aren’t the same.
There prob never really were but what did he do this week wrt his position on swamp draining? I guess we can all define that term any way we want so nevermind.
Facebook used to be taking down the WBs name but I don’t think they are anymore. I’ve seen two posts in the last 24 hours that are still up.
Its interesting that Roberts wouldn’t read the name. I assume that he was instructed not to by both sides in the very beginning. Doesn’t seem like he would have made a “ruling” like that on the fly.
As for WB protection, I think its less about security than about job protection. His job(s) are not really at risk since everyone knows who he is already. His security is not much more at risk than any of the other swamp creatures involved IMHO.
WRT identity of a 9-1-1 caller… In my experience as a supervisor in a 9-1-1 center I can say that asking for a caller’s name is typically one of the questions asked of all callers regardless of the nature of the call. But as with many general rules, it is not always followed. Some call takers forget to ask the question, or sense given a caller’s apparent reluctance that asking for the caller’s name is likely to lead to not getting cooperation in providing other critical information. YMMV. And some callers refuse to provide a name.
Some calls are readily verifiable by a police officer arriving at a location. Caller reports traffic lights are out at the corner of Smith and Main. Officer arrives and sees that is true and directs traffic. Unless there are signs of tampering at the traffic light control box at the intersection the police really have no interest in identifying the caller.
But for some of the examples in this thread I would absolutely ask for a caller’s name. If a caller has a particular history of providing reliable (or unreliable) information then that can be one factor to raise in seeking a warrant or justifying not conducting further investigation beyond an initial assessment.
A building on fire? Certainly! Having the caller’s name could ease follow up for investigating officers if the blaze is suspected of being intentionally set. People on top a commercial building in the middle of the night? Hell yes! Could be a break-in in progress. The caller could be a key witness and police may wish to follow up.
But an anonymous caller might be able to provide sufficient detailed information to allow police to get a warrant that furthers an investigation. One anonymous caller once provided a detailed description of where a handgun was hidden in a park and also alleged that the gun was owned by a particular person who deals drugs and has his drug stash hidden in a drop ceiling above a particular ceiling tile in his bathroom. Police found the handgun where it was reported to be and presented the rest of the anonymous caller’s reports from the 9-1-1 call to a judge who issued a warrant authorizing the inspection of the area above the drop ceiling in the suspect’s home. Drugs were found there and the suspect was arrested.
So, why might questioning the whistleblower in the Trump Ukraine investigation be relevant? In this case a key issue is the state of mind of Trump. That is something that is established by questioning witnesses and gathering documents. Knowing who the whistleblower is can help identify other witnesses and/or relevant documents or other evidence. It could even identify areas of investigation that are unlikely to prove fruitful. It is all about followup.
And then there is the issue of reliability. If a particular whistelblower has a history of providing reliable information then that bolsters the willingness of investigators to take his/her report seriously.
And conversely if a particular whistleblower has a history of providing information that proved unreliable the his/her statement may necessitate additional corroboration before being taken seriously. Something along the lines of a 9-1-1 call I had where the caller was reporting her ex-boyfriend for dealing drugs out of a bar that she claimed to be standing across the road from. And yet when asked to describe what her ex was wearing she was unable to do so. Police followed up but found the report to be unsubstantiated. Records showed a history of her making uncorroborated accusations against her ex and this call was used as part of the evidence to get a restraining order against her.
You mean Pauls attempt to out the wb? It makes him swampier to me? I don’t know where you were going with that.
How do we know that the person that Paul named is the whistleblower? That’s secret squirrel stuff.
I’m sort of over debating the Trump impeachment, but it brings up an interesting question about whistleblowers in general.
All Paul asked was if person X did such and such and Roberts refused to read the question. It seems that doing things like that actually expose the whistleblower. For example, Did John Bolton do Y? Yes he did. Did Mick Mulvaney do Y? No he did not. (Continue for 15 more names)
Did person X do Y? I refuse to answer that question due to whistleblower protection.
It seems that by protecting him, they are outing him.