Question, could the president order the whistle blower to be arrested to stop him?

Cardinal said:

I don't know, but he's a loose end who has information the public very much wants...and needs...to know. If this is serious enough, then the whistleblower or ICIG may very well leak the warning to the public.

Click to expand...

I'm always hoping people have the moral courage to just leak or reveal to the press but it hasn't really happened. Trump has succeeded in obstructing everything. Our system doesn't work. Congress has no real power. Subpoenas are ignored. Courts take so long that they are useless.

Trump has exposed just how broken our system is. We've depended on an honor system where people followed norms and traditions. Our system is not built to handle a thoroughly corrupt president like Trump.

The Democrats should have impeached Trump. If we were in the midst of impeachment we would get answers. As it is, we'll probably only get answers after Trump is either reelected or out of office. It's ridiculous and I'm pissed off at Democrats for being so cowardly.

independentusa said:

National Review, otherwise know as the Trump magazine.

Click to expand...

Lol! NR was against Trump in the 2016 primaries (they had a whole issue devoted to it) and have been critical of his admin.

Stealers Wheel said:

Nixon plotted to assassinate Daniel Ellsberg and Washington columnist Jack Anderson. Why wouldn't Trump, being every bit as paranoid, do the same thing?

Click to expand...

There are valid and bonafide national security reasons to give orders such as these, in every country in existence, now and in the past. However, I daresay it would be difficult to prove how such a thing, if done to please the agenda of a hostile foreign adversary, can be justified as also beneficial to our own security, unless we are now in a position subservient to said adversary.

I believe that moves a president's actions into territory which might in some ways fulfill one or more definitions of "aid and comfort to an enemy" but I am aware that there is a grey area when we are not actually at war with said adversary.

Still, even lacking such war footing, Russia is hardly even the barest of allies in even the best light, in all but the most extremist worldviews.
From where I sit they aren't allies at all, thus the question as to the grey area. Presidential authority aside, this is still a test of our core values, our sovereignty, our national security and our manifest destiny.

I will not comment as to the surety of such an investigation because I am aware that there are experts and I am not one.
Also, the way things turn out are in and of themselves a plentiful indicator as to the direction this country is taking that all people should recognize.

SonOfDaedalus said:

It depends on what the whistleblower reported.

But in an age where people want less corruption and greater transparency, you're advocating for less transparency and greater corruption. I don't get people like you.

It seems you want an executive branch that is completely unchecked and unaccountable.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm satisfied with the Constitution as it is.

But a lot does depend on what the whistleblower reported ... as you said. But not as a legal matter.
A lot also depends on the fact that the US President doesn't belong to any of the Intel agencies (they belong to us as does the office of the Presidency) so what a President says on phone calls wouldn't be subject to the whistleblower law.

That was what the DNI said days ago and I've been trying to communicate to various people for days.

independentusa said:

If bubbabgone thinks that executive privilege will protect Trump if he has broken the law or the security of our country he ought to look no farther than Nixon for his answer.

Click to expand...

The intel agency whistleblower law in question would not apply to a President.
It should be obvious why.

I hope this person and their family is protected. I hope all media is responsible and does not provide this person's name in public.
From what I understand of the law in question this person can bot go to Congress because they would then no longer be a whistleblower but a leaker of IC information and could be charged with espionage.
The really sad part about this whole episode is the people here and elsewhere saying whatever this is, it doesn't matter because the president did it.
Can we put away our partisan hats for 1 minute and think about future presidents. Unless we decide the constitution means nothing and this president will be president for life, things like this have far reaching consequences. Are we okay with this going forward?

Mach said:

I just checked on McCabe too. IG, similar to Comey, also did not "recommend prosecution" there.
In McCabes case, the IG did refer it to the DOJ for criminal *investigation*. Which they followed !

Where did you get your information?

Click to expand...

Derry. Up there where you can breathe in the Derry-air.

Lutherf said:

Good grief.

All we know is that a complaint was lodged and that the DNI disagrees with the IG's assessment. That really isn't anything new. Nobody complains when the DoJ doesn't take an IG's recommendation to prosecute Comey or McCabe but this is all of a sudden some end of the world scenario.

Click to expand...

The bolded is incorrect. The DOJ disagrees, both the DNI and IG wanted to go to Congress, but the idiot DNI decided to run it by Trump's current Roy Cohn instead.

The worst that will happen is the whistleblower will suffer a character assassination on twitter once his or her identity becomes known.

independentusa said:

I wonder if the president could order the whistle blower to be arrested and jailed to keep him from testifying if the president claims executive privilege over the info included in the complaint? I mean the president has claimed executive privilege to stop a lot of his people from talking to the House committees, but those individuals seemed to want the intervention by the president. The whistle blower must not as he made the complaint. What power does the president have to stop him from testifying if he decides to do so?

Click to expand...

If the whistleblower broke the law he could absolutely be charged.