Adam Schiff is wrong: We shouldn't unmask the Ukraine whistleblower
by Kaylee McGhee
Washington Examiner
September 30, 2019 12:05 PM
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:
....In addition, I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the “Whistleblower.” Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 29, 2019
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:
WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2019
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.
#1: nolu chan To: All (#0)
If it is not a White House inside intelligence source, every tale attributed to an anonymous source would be evidence of a federal crime of unlawful disclosure to the whistleblower who had no need to know.
If it is a White House inside intelligence source, much of the reported information would be first hand knowledge. Attributing everything to anonymous sources would be an artifice to protect him or herself as the source. Claimed first hand knowledge narrows down the list of suspects tremendously. Even here, unless s/he somehow had a need to know, each disclosure to the whistleblower (or leaker/conspirator) was a Federal crime.
Facially, the report does not add up.
It appears teed up to take testimony from the whistleblower with no Republican presence. I can only imagine someone asking the whistleblower (or appointed face of the leakers/conspirators) to identify the anonymous sources.
But how would impeachment hearings proceed with only an anonymous source of secondhand gossip from other anonymous sources? What would they do? Read a transcript of an anonymous hearsay deposition, and give time to cross examine the anonymous hearsay deposition? Would a Chief Justice preside over such a farce?
Even a common thief, when charged, enjoys better due process than that.
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-30 15:23:03 Reply Private Reply
#2: jeremiad To: nolu chan (#0)
jeremiad posted on 2019-09-30 15:23:51 Reply Private Reply
#3: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#0)
Hmmm...I think Trump already knows exactly who the whistleblower is. He is saying he wants to meet his accuser, not that he wants to find out who that accuser is. And Trump also wants to meet - not discover the identity of - the person who passed that info to the whistleblower.
This is just Trump making some strategic statements to media in preparation for later Twitter combat.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-30 15:39:13 Reply Private Reply
#4: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#1)
I think that might be a fitting punishment for John Roberts. Not adequate compared to his wildly irresponsible behavior and votes as Chief Justice but it would be a down payment.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-30 15:41:16 Reply Private Reply
#5: nolu chan To: jeremiad (#2)
I prefer the pronoun they. It more like a committee with a spokesperson.
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-30 16:22:41 Reply Private Reply
#6: nolu chan To: Tooconservative (#3)
As do the congresscritters. Think of Schiff et al screaming for a release of the report they already had. It had been sent directly to Reps. Schiff and Burr. We are seeing a lot of kabuki theater here. Ukrainegate is a retooling of the failed Russiagate. It is another synthetic crisis, manufactured for political purposes.
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-30 16:34:31 Reply Private Reply
#7: Tooconservative To: nolu chan (#6)
I do think there is some danger to the Dems if they pursue this strategy. They really don't want to let the voters think long and hard about it. Pelosi in particular does not want voters in her Blue Dog districts to start to believe that a second Trump term would be one impeachment of Trump after the next after the next because that is how she becomes House minority leader and then sent to the back benches, like what happened to Newt.
McConnell will play it all like a fiddle, intent on keeping his Majority Leader status even if Trump is removed from office or even defeated in 2020.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-30 17:30:05 Reply Private Reply
#8: WWG1WWA To: nolu chan (#1)
WWG1WWA posted on 2019-09-30 21:05:44 Reply Private Reply
#9: nolu chan To: WWG1WWA (#8)
I'll take a group of political snakes. I do not think it is an individual effort.
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-30 22:22:37 Reply Private Reply