[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
The Establishments war on Donald Trump Title: Adam Schiff is wrong: We shouldn't unmask the Ukraine whistleblower Adam Schiff is wrong: We shouldn't unmask the Ukraine whistleblower by Kaylee McGhee To a fault, President Trump values loyalty. So it isn’t surprising he demanded to know the identity of the whistleblower who exposed the Ukraine scandal. It is, however, irresponsible. It would be just as irresponsible for House Democrats to allow the whistleblower to give up his anonymity and testify before the House Intelligence Committee, as Chairman Adam Schiff suggested last week. Whoever this person is, he or she should remain just that: an unidentified “whoever” that stays out of the spotlight. Equally as irresponsible was the New York Times’ decision to run a report breaking down the whistleblower’s identity. The result was immediate: Two Trump sycophants took to the internet to offer a $50,000 reward for information “relating to the identity of the ‘Trump Whistleblower.’” Whistleblower protections exist for a reason. They prevent retaliation by media and governments, which are inevitable in this hyperpartisan, fractured political era. Trump has already vilified the unidentified person’s sources, and knowing the president, his attacks are bound to become more and more personal if the whistleblower steps into the spotlight. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right?” Trump asked last week. “With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now.” And just yesterday, Trump tweeted: Trump’s need for loyalty has clouded his judgment: The whistleblower isn’t a spy, and what he did was not treason. The unidentified person might not be under federal protection yet, but his actions certainly were, and Trump is wrong to suggest otherwise: Whistleblowing is by no means a perfect system, but it does offer additional accountability we might not have otherwise. Believe it or not, whistleblowing isn’t an easy task. There’s a rigorous protocol whistleblowers must follow if they want to gain federal protection, and even then, many still face “legal and professional reprisal,” Tom Mueller wrote for Politico. If recent history is any indication — recall, the Obama administration charged eight individuals, more than any other president, under the Espionage Act — the whistleblower won’t remain anonymous for long. The Democrats could seek to bring him forward to advance their impeachment inquiry, or it could be the whistleblower has ambitions of his own. Either way, no good can come out of making the source's identity public.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#2. To: nolu chan (#0)
IT wasn't a whistle blower. He/She/IT is simply a rumor monger.
I prefer the pronoun they. It more like a committee with a spokesperson.
There are no replies to Comment # 5. End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|