Trump Comes Under Fire After Sharing Name Of Alleged Whistleblower On Twitter

[oxmixmudd]

So , you quote me as if I had not censured your use of his name! So not only will you not respect the law, you will spit in the face of my attempt to respect it?

[rogue06]

And then the Democrats turn around and put an indefinite delay on transferring the articles to the Senate.

Yup, and in so doing are in effect doing what that charged Trump with

00000000000000ab000-00aaaj4.jpg

[Sam]

1. SCOTUS would not do that. They would rule quickly on such matters.
2. If it were so important, why didn't Nadler and Crew actually submit official subpoenas?
3. If time were such an issue, why are they now sitting on their hands?

And the whistleblower did use hearsay. He had no direct knowledge of the phone call. That is hearsay. Or worse. He could just be lying. That is why he needed to be put in front of congress for questioning.

1. SCOTUS is doing that. Right now. Because ...

2. The House have submitted to subpoenas to Mulvaney, at least two OMB officials, and others that are being ignored.

3. The House is currently demanding that the Senate allow for a trial with these witnesses so the delay in sending the articles of impeachment is directly the result of Trump blocking the witnesses.

The whistleblower complaint included, but was not limited to hearsay. Where hearsay was involved, the relevant witnesses either verified the whistleblower complaint in testimony to Congress or were blocked from testifying by Trump.

Goodness, people.

--Sam

[Sam]

Yup, and in so doing are in effect doing what that charged Trump with

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41746[/ATTACH]

This is a new level of stupid, I'll grant it that.

[rogue06]

This is a new level of stupid, I'll grant it that.

You're always obvious when you have no intelligent rebuttal, I'll grant you that.

[Cow Poke]

That's an assumption of Trump's intent. The question was about the consequence of his action.

--Sam

Yeah.

[Cow Poke]

Can I please get a direct answer to my question?

Sure

"I believe spreading the name of an alleged whistleblower is beneficial / neutral / harmful to our national interest."

Is there a question in there?

[Cow Poke]

Both the ICIG and Acting DNI, as well as numerous senior Republican members of Congress, have attested that the whistleblower is, indeed, a legitimate whistleblower and is afforded protection under the law.

--Sam

Please cite the code where he is afforded the right to anonymity.

[Sam]

You're always obvious when you have no intelligent rebuttal, I'll grant you that.

Sometimes you just get what you give. Call a demand for the Senate to hold a fair trial and not prevent witness testimony "obstruction of Congress" and "quid pro quo", you get called stupid. Because that's what it is.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Nothing quite says "impeachment is an urgent concern" like waiting a year or two for SCOTUS to rule on the matter.

OR, rushing like crazy to come up with specious articles of impeachment, then sitting on them.

[Sam]

Please cite the code where he is afforded the right to anonymity.

Both ICIG and Acting DNI, as well as numerous senior Republican senators, have said that the whistleblower's anonymity is protected as part of his or her protection against retaliation.

Please explain how Trump putting the alleged whistleblower on blast serves to protect against retaliation, rather than invite it.

--Sam

[DivineOb]

Is there a question in there?

Can I get a direct answer to my question along the lines of "I believe spreading the name of an alleged whistleblower is beneficial / neutral / harmful to our national interest."?

[Cow Poke]

Both ICIG and Acting DNI, as well as numerous senior Republican senators, have said that the whistleblower's anonymity is protected as part of his or her protection against retaliation.

Not that I don't trust you, but that's not what I asked for. Citation, please.

Please explain how Trump putting the alleged whistleblower on blast serves to protect against retaliation, rather than invite it.

--Sam

Well, first, thanks for acknowledging he's an "alleged" whistle blower.
Second, not quite sure what that sentence is supposed to mean. Trump put [him/her] "on blast"?
Third, assuming you mean Trump tweeted his name publicly, I don't need to explain how [whatever you're calling it] serves to protect against retaliation, because I never claimed it.

[Cow Poke]

Can I get a direct answer to my question along the lines of "I believe spreading the name of an alleged whistleblower is beneficial / neutral / harmful to our national interest."?

It's Trump. He stupidly tweeted something that was common knowledge. I don't believe it really impacts national security at all. It just riles up those with TDS.

[rogue06]

Both ICIG and Acting DNI, as well as numerous senior Republican senators, have said that the whistleblower's anonymity is protected as part of his or her protection against retaliation.

Please explain how Trump putting the alleged whistleblower on blast serves to protect against retaliation, rather than invite it.

--Sam

Have any of them actually addressed how Ciaramella's first going to Schiff's staff to turn complain, who then directed him to file a complaint to and may well have assisted him in drafting it, could have nullified any claim to be a whistleblower and made him an ordinary leaker