Since we no longer need to cross examine key witnesses in your world, how about the Epstein video tapes being shown publicly? For the greater good? After all, is there not a more compelling reason to loosen Amendment six provisions in order to expose compromised and blackmailed pedophile politicians who may still be in the position of making legislative or even prosecutorial decisions? Close your eyes and pretend it’s Trump. Muh!
Cons railed about the whistleblower's 3rd hand accounts. We've now heard the same and worse from first hand accounts. What's the point other than to smear him/her?
Are you saying the current impeachment investigation is based on the word of a single person who only can only offer hearsay? I admit to not looking into the latest impeachment sham closely, but damn! I thought we went through something similar to the Mueller Investigation with the Steele documents. It seems like our system is evolving to protect accusers, especially false accusers, from legal liability. In a world with Christine Blasey Ford and Justin Smollett, can we see the value of requiring the testimony and the cross examination of an accuser, if that person is still alive? Two DC prostitutes suicided themselves several years ago who had lists of prominent DC politicians who used their services. My understanding these lists are or were in the court’s protection. Do a google and Wikipedia.org search for more information. In the current pro hearsay environment, it would seem reasonable to use the friends of the dead prostitutes as witnesses, right? The key is for the law, prosecution decisions, and media coverage to be applied evenly and consistently. The tab needs to be paid in order for voters to have some faith in our Government again, Possibly beginning with Barr. If I heard correctly, there are some civil lawsuits brought by the victims of Epstein. Assuming these witnesses don’t also suicide themselves, maybe they will be offered the chance to look through a Congressional yearbook in the search for additional evidence. Perhaps they might have some hearsay evidence as well. Grin. There seems to be a massive political opportunity for a Political Party, a judge, or a politician willing to take on some short term damage in blowing this whole thing wide open. The Party or surviving individual, whether mainstream or not, that accomplishes this would likely be the hero in voters eyes for a long time to come.
I'm not sure how all this connects to dementia but I feel I have some dementia after reading comments It is interesting to see how so many have been led to believe that whistle blowers MUST be exposed and go through living hell for them to be REAL. There is a guy John Kiriakou who worked for the CIA and went on ABC news in 2007 disclosing stuff about waterboarding but did not follow the law of reporting as the current whistleblower did and exposed the identity of another CIA operative it seems. The CIA got him during the Obama years, he took a plea deal. Anyway, seems he is bitter and making apples to oranges comparisons with the current one who did follow procedure and is protected by this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act Whistleblowers are ESSENTIAL in making the difference between totalitarian states and relatively free ones. 42% of frauds are uncovered by whistleblowers - see below.
The media’s characterization of yet another accuser as “Whistleblower” seems manipulative to me. A accuser with alleged hearsay at that! The media is in constant search for credibility whether it is from “Fact finding” organizations, a select favorable quote from partisan source that says something against the apparent self interest of his group, a collection of partisan expert polls, and, of course, the skilled use of language to characterize a source of potential information that is consistent with the media’s narrative. Maybe if the media used the word “Whistleblower” with Christine Blasey Ford and Justin Smollett more vociferously and with more earnest “feeling”, Kavanaugh would never have been appointed to the Supreme Court and some White boys could have been sitting in prison for hate crimes. But, as they say, practice makes perfect. Unfortunately for the Democrats and their media enablers, things are looking like they still have a ways to go. Who would have thought it would have been so difficult to take down a cantankerous, fat, old, senile, womanizing White guy?
Dude, It was until relatively recently in history that definition would also have said without permission however now developed nations have whilstlebower protection acts. It is not the media's characterisation as you put it, it is the definition of it. And we owe whistleblowers a LOT of gratitude. My dad used to design power stations, he had double degrees in mechanical and electrical engineering. He worked tirelessly to protect workers who blew the whistle on corrupt managers and others, and it happened a LOT. How many times have you seen some lives saved, fraud uncovered etc. and thought well done that whistleblower. But because you don't like this one, oh it is not legit.
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation.
No public statement was made, through the prescribed process someone made a statement of their concerns. This was assessed and found to be a reasonably credible concern/complaint. Not public. Followed the CONFIDENTIAL process. Found credible and acted upon properly (after being held up). Give me how that is libel again? Read this first please. https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
My concerns, as mentioned in an earlier post, are based upon laws and customs not being consistently or evenly applied. A biased media is the cause of this. Another concern I have is the Democrats are inappropriately trying to use “Whistleblower protections” to prevent normal rights afforded to a defendant. I can imagine some situations where the Identity of a Whistleblower should be withheld for a reasonable period of time, but I have not seen a reasonable argument in support of this here. There is no credible evidence the accuser’s life is in danger or that keeping their identity secret is absolutely required to preserve other evidence. Further, the subject matter of the investigation does not rise to the level of a “impending and potentially debilitating national security risk” that should be necessary to justify risking the diminishment of a defendant’s rights. Now back to the accuser. The accuser is not the only one who has rights. Again, the accused has rights as well. The people who elected the accused also have rights. What makes this case even more ridiculous, is the idea there was not anything out of the norm, measured by historical standards, concerning Trump’s conduct. The accusers knowledge, experience, and apparent availability are key to a credible investigation. Good God, given the antics of the Left recently, there is a need for credibility of our political process right now. The right to face one’s accuser and cross examine him should not be infringed, especially when a opposing political party has multiple levels of politically based interest in the outcome. The Democrats really needed some Republican support before preceding with impeachment. Do you see this now? This impeachment hearing seems more about maintaining the status quo for establishment politicians (Or their sons) than about finding out the cause of a real and significant illegal action that caused significant harm to the United States. As far as witness protection is concerned, for all of Trump’s opponents and all the lawsuits he has been in, there is yet to be credible evidence that any Trump directed physical harm has come to any witnesses that were against him. We need a return to ethics, legal principles, and the Constitution in order to have a representative Government again.