[Let's Roll]

Isn’t being able to face ones accuser in court part of due process?
Pretty hard to do that if you don’t know your accuser’s identity.

Or is that too idealistic?

[Cboldt]

-- Isn't being able to face ones accuser in court part of due process? --

It is, but even that is mangled in certain cases. That said, the right, the the extent it is enforced, exists post-indictment. The parallel here would be post-articles-of-impeachment.

That said, I think the better angle in this case is to flip the table, and accuse the so-called whistleblower. He is a leaker. There is a possibility the so-called whistleblower committed a crime. There is no right to be an anonymous criminal.

[CurlyDave]

Isn’t being able to face ones accuser in court part of due process? Pretty hard to do that if you don’t know your accuser’s identity.

Or is that too idealistic?

If you really think this, go back and re-read the story of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

The fat young girl who was supposedly on the phone with Trayvon testified, but the corrupt judge withheld her identity until the moment she appeared in court. This deprived the defense of the opportunity to do a background investigation on her and be prepared with a line of questioning.

Fortunately she was so inept that she came off poorly and Zimmerman was acquitted, as he should have been.

In this case it would handicap the President's case immensely if the "whistleblower" identity was not know well before the Senate trial.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

We have all fallen for the Ciaramella name, hook, line and sinker. What if there is a second one, or what if his name is just a ruse and there is really someone else?

Since we control the Senate. I doubt there is a huge issue, but the pretend secrecy about this makes me wonder if they are hiding someone different by throwing out the name of a low-level, low-wattage hack.