Comments by "" (@JohnDoe-ew3xt) on "This is an inferno and an obvious cover-up: Rantz" video.
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ghost_martini "Where is the whistleblower? "
my how things change... lol
Sorry, Republicans. The whistleblower’s identity no longer matters.
The evidence of President’s Trump’s wrongdoing is piling ever higher. It now includes his own phone call with the Ukrainian president; texts, emails and other documents; and the testimony of multiple officials, all telling essentially the same story: that Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani tried to strong-arm Ukraine into helping his reelection campaign.
Faced with all that, Republicans are now saying this: Nothing is more important than revealing the identity of the whistleblower whose complaint touched off this scandal. Without knowing who that person is, we can’t judge Trump.
This idea is being hammered home multiple times a day across conservative media. So it’s important that we understand two things about this argument. First, it’s deeply, profoundly, absurdly wrong. And second, it’s being offered for no reason other than to pull attention away from the substance of Trump’s misdeeds.
While it might be of some historical interest, at this point the whistleblower’s identity is irrelevant. No one is asking that we take their word on anything. They sounded the alarm that touched off an investigation, but the evidence that will provide the grounds for impeachment is coming from Trump’s own words and the testimony of multiple officials in his administration, not the whistleblower.
1
-
@ghost_martini here's another one...
Republicans want Trump-Ukraine whistleblower named, so why won't they do it themselves?
Contrary to a recent fact-check article criticizing Schiff’s statement that the whistleblower has a “statutory right to anonymity,” multiple laws provide exactly that protection. And for all their posturing, Republicans seem to know it.
For example, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act makes it unlawful to take any “action constituting reprisal” against whistleblowers who follow the proper procedures to report national security concerns, as the whistleblower did here. Similarly, it is obstruction of justice to “retaliate” against a person “for providing to a law enforcement officer” information about a “possible” federal crime, which would include bribery.
The law is clear that “outing” a whistleblower can indeed constitute retaliation and reprisal. In just one example of many, a union posted the names of employees who had sued it. That outing was unlawful retaliation because, as the court explained, “no one volunteers for the role of social pariah.”
1
-
1