Disagree. Impeachment being absolutely a political process, all aspects of his coming forward or his info being brought forward should be fair game.
Anybody have the straight dope on the “whistleblower” protection law?
I am [del]Spartacus[/del] [del]whistleblower[/del] the walrus.
Universe? I know I haven’t been a very good pantheist, but if you could just give me this one sign…
What can be learned from him? The potential harm that he would face vastly outweighs any testimony that he could give. Also, he offered to provide written answers to the committee’s questions. That should be good enough.
I’m sure you think the two clauses of this sentence are somehow related to one another, but I’ll be damned if I can figure out how. Care to expound on your logic, break it down a little ?
No, Individual 1 has called for him to be executed.
I think it may boil down to: “It’s politics, anything and everything is allowed”
A sentiment I do not agree with.
I’ll try to explain if you help me with my sentence construction. Here’s my part:
Impeachment is a political process rather than a legal process, right? The House can decide whatever a “high crime or misdemeanor” is. The party in control of the house can set all the rules of the hearings, both the closed door hearings or the public ones. The Senate then decides guilt or innocence. I predict we’ll get to that point and we’ll see just how political the Senate is.
Given the above, I think that “all aspects of his coming forward or his info being brought forward should be fair game”. I assume that part is clear but if not, I apologize.
How might I have worded that sentence?
I’m still not really seing a strict connection between “is_political” and “is_fairgame”. I expect you wouldn’t think it fair for witnesses to testify with a literal gun to their heads for instance ?
What I mean is that, beyond the politics, this guy’s life is very much in danger.
Nope, just “all aspects of his coming forward or his info being brought forward should be fair game”.
Unless maybe somebody did that to encourage him to come forward.
All aspects? Including discussing and deciding upon “why the (major) cons outweigh the (minuscule) pros of forcing the whistleblower to publicly testify?
Done, and done. Satisfied?
Don’t know why you included the scare quotes.
It’s not a single law ( although it started that way). It’s a series of laws and well-defined protections. Here’s a link to the relevant document
And an article explaining why it’s important. But unless you agree that the interest of the USA does not always and necessarily perfectly align with the self interest of its leader, don’t bother reading.
He or she is doing an AMA on reddit tonight (Tues) at 7 pm EST
Point of order… The author of that book (and the “lodestar” letter) is not generally believed to be the same person as the intelligence community whistleblower who reported their concerns about the Trump-Zelensky call. At least as far as I know.
I think it’d be funny if it was Bolton.
Anonymous or the whistle blower? Because I’m pretty sure he is neither. Bolton is just teasing sales for his forthcoming book.
That’s the author of A Warning by Anonymous. Not the same as the whistleblower.
not many answers from him/her . No big news. They did say they would give their name before the election.
I was thinking of the whistleblower, but I agree that it’s not Bolton.
I just think that it’d be funny if the Dems, after all this hounding by the GOP to name this person and require him or her to come forth and talk, finally announced, “OK. We’ll do it. The whistleblower is Bolton. He’ll be publicly testifying tomorrow.”
sorry I confused the whistleblower with the person who wrote the Warning book.