Impeachment: Trump's son tweets name of alleged whistleblower

Nov 2005
9,450
4,004
California

President Donald Trump's son published on Wednesday the name of the alleged anonymous whistleblower whose complaint fired the impeachment inquiry against Trump, breaking strict conventions for protecting officials who reveal wrongdoing in government.

Amid calls by the president himself to expose the whistleblower, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted the name of a CIA analyst which has circulated online for weeks, and linked to a Breitbart news article implying the person was pro-Democrat and anti-Trump.

AFP could not independently verify the whistleblower's identity and is not publishing the name.

But the revelation by the president's son comes as the White House seeks to discredit the mounting impeachment effort in Congress against Trump, painting it as driven by politics.

"There is no Whistleblower. There is someone with an agenda against Donald Trump," the president tweeted on Monday.

Standing beside Trump at a political rally in Kentucky Monday, Republican Senator Rand Paul threatened to expose the person and demanded they testify in Congress.

"We also now know the name of the whistleblower... I say tonight to the media, do your job and print his name."

Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower's lawyer, would not confirm or deny the reported name, but said Trump Jr. and others were endangering the person as well as the system built to protect whistleblowers.

"Identifying any name for the whistleblower will simply place that individual and their family at risk," he told AFP.

"It won't, however, relieve the president of the need to address the substantive allegations, all of which have been substantially proven to be true."​

What is the point in all this?
The investigation has moved well past the initial whistleblower aspect and obtained CORROBORATING EVIDENCE.
Trump's attempt to fixate on the whistleblower is little more than an obvious distraction, but the actions he and his son take here are also reprehensible!
 
Nov 2005
9,450
4,004
California

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,243
29,057
Colorado
DJ Jr. is full of frothy shit, as is everyone connected with the House of Trump.

Trump and company argue that the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which forbids “retaliation” against a whistleblower, only shields against adverse workplace action and not against disclosure. The president himself couples his calls to out the whistleblower with unsupported assertions that the whistleblower’s account of the call is false.​
This is both wrong and brazen. First, as has been widely noted, the whistleblower’s report was corroborated to a remarkable degree both by the rough transcript of the July 25 phone call released by the White House and then by witness after witness during the House inquiry. Most recent came the revelation that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, had amended his earlier testimony to verify that the administration pressed Ukraine for a clear quid pro quo: U.S. military aid for an investigation into Trump’s political rivals.​
That being so, the whistleblower’s job is done. Whistleblower statutes exist to incentivize people to come forward with allegations of wrongdoing for government investigators to examine. If the government concludes there is a sound basis for the allegations, it pursues the matter; the whistleblower then recedes from the scene, and his original motives — of so much apparent interest to Trump and his defenders here — are all beside the point.
Second, disclosure wouldn’t violate the law, according to Paul and other Trump defenders such as Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), because the whistleblower statute protects only against “retaliation,” which they construe, without argument or support, is limited to workplace reprisal.​
But the law itself strongly undercuts this argument. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 amended, and became part of, the Inspector General Act of 1978, and that law provides that an inspector general’s office may not provide to Congress or the public any personally identifiable information on a whistleblower without the whistleblower’s consent.​
More important, the plain meaning of “retaliation” — harming someone who has harmed you — encompasses more than adverse workplace action.​
There can be little doubt that a campaign of character assassination awaits this whistleblower if his or her identify become public. Thus, a purposeful outing would be retaliation under a proper reading of the statute, which is one driven by statutory purpose. The purpose of this and other whistleblower statutes is to provide incentive to would-be whistleblowers to make worthwhile what would otherwise be a fraught and harmful path.
The right way to consider what constitutes retaliation under the law is therefore to consider the vantage point of a prospective future whistleblower. Would the political mugging the Republicans are readying for the whistleblower make it less likely that the next person would come forward? Of course. And that’s even before considering the very real threat of physical danger this whistleblower would face at the hands of a crazed zealot.

 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
39,824
27,628
La La Land North
If, as you say, the issue is well passed the whistleblowers identity, why protect the name?
Because of all the RWNJs and their death threats. Alex Jones showed a picture of what is supposedly the WB's parents home and they have already been inundated with death threats.

Plus there are laws that make it illegal which apparently don't apply to congresscritters, but do to Trump's spawn and Jones.

But as I said, it would be up the the DOJ to pursue this. And no way flunky Barr would do it.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,243
29,057
Colorado
Because of all the RWNJs and their death threats. Alex Jones showed a picture of what is supposedly the WB's parents home and they have already been inundated with death threats.

Plus there are laws that make it illegal which apparently don't apply to congresscritters, but do to Trump's spawn and Jones.

But as I said, it would be up the the DOJ to pursue this. And no way flunky Barr would do it.
Talk about a shit-eating grin.
TRUMP JR. DEFENDS CALLING OUT SUSPECTED WHISTLEBLOWER: 'I'M A PRIVATE CITIZEN PUTTING THIS OUT THERE'
In an appearance on The View, Donald Trump Jr. stood by his decision to release what he alleges was the name of the whistleblower who triggered the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.​
...During his appearance, Trump was immediately confronted by host Abby Huntsman, who told Trump, "The whole point of releasing a name is to intimidate someone, to threaten someone, and to scare other people from coming out." She added, "That's something that dictators do." Before asking Trump why he released the name, she mentioned, "I've seen that firsthand, that's not what America does. We stand by our people."​
Trump responded, "The whistleblower's name was on a little website called The Drudge Report a couple of days ago." Trump tweeted an article from conservative news site Breitbart on Wednesday that contained the alleged name of the whistleblower, who has chosen to remain anonymous during the impeachment inquiry, in the headline.​
After telling the panel that the information was already out there, he tried to deflect by saying, "I wish the outrage would be equal." He also said, "There was no outrage when my family got an exploding letter with white powder substance in it." He said, "It's not a level playing field, in terms of outrage."​
Joy Behar countered Trump's assertion: "He asked to be anonymous; your family did not."​
Trump responded: "For days, he's been out there in the media." Host Sunny Hostin responded, "It's different when the president's son does it," which led Trump to assert his status as a private citizen.​

More: Trump Jr. defends calling out suspected whistleblower, says, "I'm a private citizen putting this out there"
 
May 2018
4,697
3,698
USA
If, as you say, the issue is well passed the whistleblowers identity, why protect the name?
To protect the whistleblower's LIFE. How DUMB are you, anyway? And also, why is it whenever Trump or his surrogates blatantly disrespect and break the law that you Trumpanzees equivocate or dissemble?
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en