POLL: Is It Logical To Think The Trump Whistleblower Would be in Danger if Their Identity is Known?

[sooda]

I have worked with secret service agents, they have political views, just like anyone else. I suspect the same with CIA people.

I have family in both.. Of course they have political views and they rise above them.. Its a matter of their honor and patriotism.

 

[shmogie]

I have family in both.. Of course they have political views and they rise above them.. Its a matter of their honor and patriotism.

Well, there was a time when I would have believed what you say. I have worked most with the FBI on a number of cases.

I always considered them to be totally apolitical and the premiere law enforcement agency, especially when Hoover was in charge.

In my view, their upper level managers disgraced the agency, for purely political reasons, despicable.

If the FBI can jump into the political fray, so can the other two agencies in todayś political climate.

My trust in any of them is diminished.


The SS can protect dignitaries and chase counterfeit money with little potential harm.

The cabal of intelligence agencies has the ability to do very serious harm to the Republic, and I flat out do not trust them, the CIA especially.

The CIA has made some very stupid mistakes, couple that with political meddling, and the people once again get screwed ultimately by the puppetry of the government.

 

[shmogie]

Again you act as if the IC IG just took the second-hand info as gospel and nothing else, when the reality is that he interviewed the people who gave the WB the second hand info and found their accounts to be credible.


Yes! Good grief, you didn't know that?

Whistle-Blower Is Said to Allege Concerns About White House Handling of Ukraine Call

"The whistle-blower, moreover, identified multiple White House officials as witnesses to potential presidential misconduct who could corroborate the complaint, the people said — adding that the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, interviewed witnesses."​

Michael Atkinson, the IC IG, is a Trump appointee. You didn't know that either?

For someone who goes around making a lot of confident-sounding claims, you sure are ignorant of some very basic facts.


Geez dude, are you unable to do anything yourself? CLICK HERE

Again, I'm astounding at the contrast between all the things you don't know and your extremely confident repetition of right-wing talking points.

You obviously lack understanding as to the Aristotlean method of dealing with issues, and teaching.

You confuse rhetorical or informational questions designed to put the whole issue into perspective at the same time, as being evidence of a lack of knowledge.

The only knowledge that is lacking is yours when it comes methods of debate or discussion.

You support the whistle blower and the process involved, you must establish your argument in response to the questions I pose. What is on the internet isn´t the issue, the issue is how you interpret the facts and present a cogent defense of your position..

As you recall, I answered every question you posed, because I am familiar with this method.

Of course this stopped when you ignored or refused to answer my questions, because to answer eroded your position.

You must, of course, find a derogatory connotation/s to apply. You believe your argument and ego rise when you make personal remarks about your "enemy".

You have been consistent with this throughout.

There are three on my ignore list who used the same tactic, the third grade argument style.

I will cease responding to you on this thread, I do not approve of your ignorance or modus operandi. You jumped in to argue an issue, which is fine, but your derogatory remarks invalidate you as a correspondent, I only do it in response to someone who does it first, and I dislike it greatly.

We no doubt will will cross swords again. I hope you will have learned your lesson, if not to ignore you go.

 

[Jose Fly]

You obviously lack understanding as to the Aristotlean method of dealing with issues, and teaching.

You confuse rhetorical or informational questions designed to put the whole issue into perspective at the same time, as being evidence of a lack of knowledge.

So when you said "I would like to know why a document of total hearsay constitutes something of any legal standing", you already knew that 1) there is no requirement that a WB have only first-hand information, 2) the WB had both first-hand and second-hand knowledge, 3) the IC IG investigated the WB's second-hand accounts by interviewing people with first-hand knowledge, and 4) after those interviews the IC IB found the WB's accounts to be credible?

When you asked "If he talked to others, where are the reports", you already knew where the reports were and had read them?

When you asked "Why weren´t they disseminated in a redacted format along with the complaint", you already knew that they had been and had read them?

When you asked "Why wasn´t the fact that the alleged whistleblower met with schiff before he ever filed the complaint not included", you already knew that to be false?

If so, that's really odd since after I answered all of that you still responded with:

"The IG found it credible. What does this mean ? Did he base his judgement on an interview with the complainer, and based on that think the story credible ? Did he interview the alleged primary sources, and find what they said credible ? Did he have a bias, that effected his view of credibility ? Where is his investigation report ? I am sure he must document his credible lain.

What is the foundation of the credible claim ? What are the standards being followed in determining credibility ?

He is not God, he cannot just know credibility when he sees it. There must be a policy for determining credibility, I want to see it and I want to know if he followed the policy."
​

That certainly doesn't read to me like someone employing the "Aristotean method" (are you sure you didn't mean Socratic method?). Instead it reads very much like someone regurgitating a set of talking points and scrambling around for excuses once those talking points are shown to be nonsense.

But if that is indeed what you were doing, then I guess I should be content that we're on the same page. Apparently we both understand that a WB does not need to have exclusively first-hand info, this specific WB had both first-hand and second-hand info, the IC IG investigated the complaint (including interviewing staff with first-hand knowledge) and found it to be "credible and urgent", he wrote that into a report that's been released, and Schiff never met with the WB.

The only knowledge that is lacking is yours when it comes methods of debate or discussion.

I do confess to being rather baffled by your methods. I mistook you for a Trump supporter who was parroting the set of right-wing talking points associated with the Ukraine scandal.

You support the whistle blower and the process involved, you must establish your argument in response to the questions I pose. What is on the internet isn´t the issue, the issue is how you interpret the facts and present a cogent defense of your position..

So you agree with me on this issue, and have just been ensuring that I can support our mutual take on it?

Of course this stopped when you ignored or refused to answer my questions, because to answer eroded your position.

Are you going to fall on this sword again? The last time you made this accusation against me, I repeatedly asked you to re-post the questions so that I could answer them. You never did and eventually just left the thread.

All I can do is repeat.....if you have questions you'd like me to answer, post them and I'll do my best to answer.

I will cease responding to you on this thread, I do not approve of your ignorance or modus operandi.

???????? I thought we were in agreement here? I thought you were just using the Aristotlean/Socratic method to make sure my position is founded in the facts?

You jumped in to argue an issue, which is fine, but your derogatory remarks invalidate you as a correspondent, I only do it in response to someone who does it first, and I dislike it greatly.

We no doubt will will cross swords again. I hope you will have learned your lesson, if not to ignore you go.

Do as you please. But I will say, I'm baffled by people who join discussion forums only to put people on ignore.

 

[Callisto]

Of the more questionable things I've heard from this recent situation was the idea that they need to protect the identity of the whistleblower to protect them from possible danger.
Does anyone really think that such a high profile individual would actually be in danger of anything? I'd say it's logical to assume that this individual and Trump's actions would be under such a fine microscope that the whistleblower would basically be untouchable.

US Presidents have been assassinated and nearly so. Will a government employee have comparable protections to safeguard their well being?

"Right to confront witness
Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront against him or her in a criminal action. This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. As well as the right to the prosecution's witnesses. etc...

This is not yet a trial and one accused in a criminal trial does not get access to their accuser outside of a trial much less per their own terms. Not legally anyway, which is why tampering with a witness is also a criminal offense. The whistle blower went through proper, established legal channels to file their report.

 

[metis]

This is not yet a trial and one accused in a criminal trial does not get access to their accuser outside of a trial much less per their own terms.

Exactly, but please do remember that the Trump defenders are heavy into parroting what they hear on Fox and related right-wing sources.

Federal law helps to protect whistleblowers since they logically could be intimidated, but this means little to so many of the Trump supporters who virtually ignore Trump's violations of the "rule of law" that he commits on a daily basis, such as his daily violation of the Emolument Clause of the Constitution that's been going on for over two years.

 

[Jose Fly]

Exactly, but please do remember that the Trump defenders are heavy into parroting what they hear on Fox and related right-wing sources.

Quite true.

Poll: Only 4 in 10 Republicans think Trump mentioned Biden on Ukraine call even though he acknowledged doing so

Federal law helps to protect whistleblowers since they logically could be intimidated, but this means little to so many of the Trump supporters who virtually ignore Trump's violations of the "rule of law" that he commits on a daily basis, such as his daily violation of the Emolument Clause of the Constitution that's been going on for over two years.

There is absolutely no reason for their identities to be revealed. The right just wants to so they can engage in personal attacks and intimidation, because that's all they have.

 

[Augustus]

I always considered them to be totally apolitical... especially when Hoover was in charge.

The ferociously apolitical J Edgar Hoover with his famously non-political opposition to the civil rights movement and the assiduously fair and balanced COINTELPRO.

 

[shmogie]

The ferociously apolitical J Edgar Hoover with his famously non-political opposition to the civil rights movement and the assiduously fair and balanced COINTELPRO.

Nonsense,it was the FBI that investigated civil rights abuses and murders of civil rights advocates in the South. No one else would do it. If his opposition to civil rights is famous, please document it, because I have never heard of it.

Hoover had one goal, to insulate the FBI from political interference. He would work with anyone of any party to achieve the goal, and had dirt on politicians from both parties so they would leave he and the agency alone lest he expose them.

 

[Augustus]

Nonsense,it was the FBI that investigated civil rights abuses and murders of civil rights advocates in the South. No one else would do it. If his opposition to civil rights is famous, please document it, because I have never heard of it.

FBI–King suicide letter - Wikipedia

 

[shmogie]

FBI–King suicide letter - Wikipedia

Oh, he hated King, not because of his civil rights efforts, but because he believed him to be a communist front man. Further, the fact that the FBI allegedly discovered King to be a multi adulterer, fed into this hatred.