Replies

“No Carlson, no Hannity, no Ingraham, no Dobbs that I know of. Real profiles in courage over at Fox.”

Those of us defending President Trump have good reason for not being in a big hurry to name the so-called whistleblower:

A true whistleblower never remains anonymous. The whole point of the whistleblower protection statute is to protect a whistleblower from the risk of negative consequences when he comes forward to “blow his whistle” - such as termination, etc.. A witness hiding behind anonymity and never facing those he is accusing, has no need of protection under whistleblower status, and is not a true whistleblower.

Furthermore, whistleblower protection under the law is ensured precisely to encourage a witness to come forward and be named. So, why would such a witness need the protection of anonymity? It suggests there is something wrong with this witness, something the Democrats are hiding. They are trying to have it both ways.

For these reasons, the best strategy for Team Trump in discrediting the Democrats’ impeachment case is to challenge the legitimacy of a so-called whistleblower on the basis that they are hiding behind anonymity, and not available to the defense for cross examination.

Obviously then, if team Trump figures out who the whistleblower is, it would be in their best interest NOT to name him, but instead to insist that the Democrats name him.

Team Trump is calling the Democrats’ bluff by not naming the so-called whistleblower.

I’m pretty sure that’s what’s going on.

Not to mention the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment.

Does Trump have a right to confront his accuser(s) in all impeachment proceedings? if he is being accused of a crime or misdemeanor, it seems to me that impeachment may be construed as a criminal court proceeding. If it is not, then why use terms of criminal justice to define it?

The only problem with that scenario is that one of their own people already mentioned his name on the air and none of them said one word in her defense. Media outlets have published his name. A Senator has mentioned his name. His name was on official impeachment documents, supposedly left on by mistake. Mollie was just pointing out what a farce it is and none of them defended her right to point that out, they just let those bus wheels roll right over her without one attempt to pull her out from under it.

Tucker Carlson had an entire segment Monday or Tuesday on how the first amendment is being squashed, not by the government but by corporations and colleges. He proved his own point.

The whole point of the whistleblower protection statute is to protect a whistleblower from the risk of negative consequences

The statute does not apply to thirdhand-gossip, but rather provable facts and evidence, and further, it applies to outing corrupt executive branch dept heads and bureaucRATs, not The President.

This guy is not "a whistleblower" but a well known corrupt lying partisan hack, as is shown by release of the actual transcript.