• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the whistleblower no longer matters

lwf

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
22,378
Reaction score
16,224
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Imagine that there is an investigation into alleged crimes committed by a high ranking member of the mafia.

A homeless, meth addicted felon with a rap sheet a mile long hears from other members of the mafia about crimes committed by the suspect, and informs the police. The police proceed to investigate and find five undercover police officers who all claim to have witnessed various aspects of the crime at various stages.

There are a total of six witnesses, five of whom are credible with first hand knowledge of the alleged crime and willing to testify, and one of whom is entirely unreliable with only second hand knowledge who doesn't want to testify because he understandably fears retaliation. He asks to remain anonymous.

What reason is there for the defense attorneys to insist that an unreliable witness be forced to put his life in danger and testify? Would doing so help their client in any way? Would it be responsible for the prosecutor to allow the defense to force the sixth witness to reveal his identity to the mafia, when there are five credible witnesses making the same allegation? If the witness remains anonymous, is the suspect being denied his right to face his accusers, if his accusers are the five undercover police officers?

---

The whitleblower's testimony in the impeachment inquiry is no longer relevant. All pertinent facts of the case have been, and continue to be, gathered from credible witnesses during the investigation process. The whistleblower can remain anonymous without doing any harm to the defense or to the prosecution's case. Consider him an unreliable witness and ignore his report. Focus only on the testimony of those being called before Congress.

I am not suggesting that the whistleblower is unreliable, only that he or she can safely be considered unreliable without damaging either side. The whistleblower report no longer contains any material evidence that hasn't been corroborated and expanded upon by more credible witnesses, or by the White House itself. The whistleblower can safely fade into anonymity.

The ONLY reason to call the whistleblower before congress is to intimidate potential future witnesses. There is no other legal or logical reason to do so.
 
Because people don't care about Adam Schiff's imaginary friend.
 
To oh-so-humbly quote myself:


I'd like to hear a coherent explanation from the GOP of why they want the whistleblower to testify, one which takes account of all the other things they've said. Until very recently they were insisting we should simply ignore him because he doesn't have first hand information. We've since been hearing from witnesses with first hand information that further backs up the whistleblower, just like their own edited memo did.

Substantively, the whistleblower's role is done. He revealed what he heard. Now we're hearing from the people who witnessed various parts of these events. What could they do but put on political theater about the whistleblower? The substantive question is what happened, per the people who actually witnessed it, and then whether he should be removed from office for what happened; the whistleblower has nothing to add to that at this point. That is, even if he did act out of political motivation, what he reported in fact happened in reality. If it did in fact happen, then his motivation for telling someone that he heard it had happened becomes irrelevant to the questions before congress.

Consider the common snitch. Let us say a crackhead who has been threatened with death by his dealer, to whom he owes $200. The crackhead, wanting to save his bacon or perhaps wanting revenge on the dealer, goes to the police and eventually helps take the dealer down in a sting. His motivation is not some pure desire to improve the community, but this has nothing to do with the question of whether the dealer sold crack illegally. Or change the facts. The snitch is taking down his dealer's rival. Still doesn't change anything, does it? The question is the same no matter the motive of the informant.

(One should also consider the context here, which is that the GOP has flopped from one defense to another, regularly contradicting itself; Lindsey Graham tries to make it look like the Dems are hiding things with "we need the transcripts!", and then when they release the transcripts, he tries to show strength with "I'm not going to be reading any transcripts." It's the reverse is what's going on with their shifting approach to the whistleblower).



I certainly wouldn't object to a deal: whistleblower testifies and they get their chance to try to distract people with political theatre about his alleged motives, BUT in exchange, Trump orders everyone he has stonewalling to fully cooperate and he himself answers questions under oath and orally.
 
lwf said:
The ONLY reason to call the whistleblower before congress is to intimidate potential future witnesses. There is no other legal or logical reason to do so.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the other hope is to do stuff like ask him about all the Democrats he's voted for, associations with anyone leaning-left, etc. Political theater.

Doesn't matter if he's a hardcore Democrat if what he said is true and it appears to be completely true. But that won't stop the lying liars from lying.
 
What doesn't matter is the House impeachment inquiry.

We know what they're going to rule. No need for a parade of non-witnesses wasting everyone's time. Let's just fast-forward to the Senate hearing, where the "whistleblower" will matter and will be called to testify.

Then we can get to the bottom of everything.
 
Taylor said:
What doesn't matter is the House impeachment inquiry.

We know what they're going to rule. No need for a parade of non-witnesses wasting everyone's time. Let's just fast-forward to the Senate hearing, where the "whistleblower" will matter and will be called to testify.

Then we can get to the bottom of everything.
Click to expand...

The Dems' tangled web will be unspun.
 
Taylor said:
What doesn't matter is the House impeachment inquiry.

We know what they're going to rule. No need for a parade of non-witnesses wasting everyone's time. Let's just fast-forward to the Senate hearing, where the "whistleblower" will matter and will be called to testify.

Then we can get to the bottom of everything.
Click to expand...

The whistleblower you spent months saying did not matter because he only had second hand information because that's what FoxTrump told you to say? The whistleblower you are desperate to now focus on because all the first-hand witnesses backed him up?

:lamo

**** man, who do you think you're fooling? Don't you realize how telling it is that all you can ever do to defend Trump is to splutter something something Democrat conspiracy something something? Don't you realize how blatantly you are telegraphing that the only reason you all changed your tune about wanting to hear from the whistleblower (or any witnesses for that matter) is so you can put on political theater in service of your truther-worthy CTs?





Anyway, you should probably wait until all this plays out but most likely until Nov 2020 to find out whether or not the impeachment inquiry matters. In 2020, the worshipped lout will not be facing the least popular Democrat candidate ever, and the candidate he does face will not have idiotically ignored a few key states on the campaign trail. He'll only have his base and those people willing to throw America's reputation/values in the trash if it means stacking the Supreme Court in a way they'd like.
 
Last edited:
It's entirely possible that the Democrats could decide that the impeachment "inquiry" has more propaganda value than letting it get to the Senate. They may never get around to voting for impeachment.

Taylor said:
What doesn't matter is the House impeachment inquiry.

We know what they're going to rule. No need for a parade of non-witnesses wasting everyone's time. Let's just fast-forward to the Senate hearing, where the "whistleblower" will matter and will be called to testify.

Then we can get to the bottom of everything.
Click to expand...
 
Taylor said:
What doesn't matter is the House impeachment inquiry.

We know what they're going to rule. No need for a parade of non-witnesses wasting everyone's time. Let's just fast-forward to the Senate hearing, where the "whistleblower" will matter and will be called to testify.

Then we can get to the bottom of everything.
Click to expand...

Will Trump and all the people he's blocking from testifying now be called to testify?
 
Taylor said:
What doesn't matter is the House impeachment inquiry.

We know what they're going to rule. No need for a parade of non-witnesses wasting everyone's time. Let's just fast-forward to the Senate hearing, where the "whistleblower" will matter and will be called to testify.

Then we can get to the bottom of everything.
Click to expand...

Bottom of everything = Democrats are criminally insane
 
The whistleblower is important because he was a CIA plant inside the White House reporting to director Brennan. It's all going to come out soon. Not the first time the CIA has tried regime change in their own country.
 
lwf said:
Imagine that there is an investigation into alleged crimes committed by a high ranking member of the mafia.

A homeless, meth addicted felon with a rap sheet a mile long hears from other members of the mafia about crimes committed by the suspect, and informs the police. The police proceed to investigate and find five undercover police officers who all claim to have witnessed various aspects of the crime at various stages.

There are a total of six witnesses, five of whom are credible with first hand knowledge of the alleged crime and willing to testify, and one of whom is entirely unreliable with only second hand knowledge who doesn't want to testify because he understandably fears retaliation. He asks to remain anonymous.

What reason is there for the defense attorneys to insist that an unreliable witness be forced to put his life in danger and testify? Would doing so help their client in any way? Would it be responsible for the prosecutor to allow the defense to force the sixth witness to reveal his identity to the mafia, when there are five credible witnesses making the same allegation? If the witness remains anonymous, is the suspect being denied his right to face his accusers, if his accusers are the five undercover police officers?

---

The whitleblower's testimony in the impeachment inquiry is no longer relevant. All pertinent facts of the case have been, and continue to be, gathered from credible witnesses during the investigation process. The whistleblower can remain anonymous without doing any harm to the defense or to the prosecution's case. Consider him an unreliable witness and ignore his report. Focus only on the testimony of those being called before Congress.

I am not suggesting that the whistleblower is unreliable, only that he or she can safely be considered unreliable without damaging either side. The whistleblower report no longer contains any material evidence that hasn't been corroborated and expanded upon by more credible witnesses, or by the White House itself. The whistleblower can safely fade into anonymity.

The ONLY reason to call the whistleblower before congress is to intimidate potential future witnesses. There is no other legal or logical reason to do so.
Click to expand...

The whistle blower doesn't exist. It matters very much that the existance of the whistle blower was a big ****ing lie.
 
Mr Person said:
The whistleblower you spent months saying did not matter
Click to expand...
You must have me confused with the OP.

Mr Person said:
The whistleblower you are desperate to now focus on because all the first-hand witnesses backed him up?
Click to expand...
Everyone has been focused on the "whistleblower" until recently when the Democrats suddenly declared that he "didn't matter". Please try to keep up with the news, it may help you look a little less foolish and a little less ignorant with some of your posts.
 
SDET said:
It's entirely possible that the Democrats could decide that the impeachment "inquiry" has more propaganda value than letting it get to the Senate. They may never get around to voting for impeachment.
Click to expand...
Possible, but highly improbable IMO. That would give Trump a HUGE win in an election year where they have two dozen people from the B-list running.
 
Taylor said:
You must have me confused with the OP.


Everyone has been focused on the "whistleblower" until recently when the Democrats suddenly declared that he "didn't matter". Please try to keep up with the news, it may help you look a little less foolish and a little less ignorant with some of your posts.
Click to expand...

The whistleblower stopped mattering when other more credible witnesses and the White House corroborated everything he alleged. Since there is nothing new he can tell us, and everything in his report has been corroborated by other known witnesses, why does he matter?
 
apdst said:
The whistle blower doesn't exist. It matters very much that the existance of the whistle blower was a big ****ing lie.
Click to expand...

Even if that is true, everything in the report has been independently corroborated. The Democrats are no longer relying on ANY information from the whistleblower report. If you want to protect Trump, attacking the whistleblower gives you nothing.
 
lemmiwinx said:
The whistleblower is important because he was a CIA plant inside the White House reporting to director Brennan. It's all going to come out soon. Not the first time the CIA has tried regime change in their own country.
Click to expand...

Assuming this is true, this will change nothing. Trump is still guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should still be removed from office, not based on anything the whistleblower said, but based on the public testimony of actual witnesses.
 
SDET said:
Because people don't care about Adam Schiff's imaginary friend.
Click to expand...

Nor should they. It is the known witnesses testifying in public that they should be concerned about.
 
I remember when the press hounded Nixon out of office there was whistleblower John Dean who became a media hero. Why shouldn't this whistleblower be rewarded likewise?
 
lemmiwinx said:
I remember when the press hounded Nixon out of office there was whistleblower John Dean who became a media hero. Why shouldn't this whistleblower be rewarded likewise?
Click to expand...

After trial
 
Mr Person said:
The whistleblower you spent months saying did not matter because he only had second hand information because that's what FoxTrump told you to say? The whistleblower you are desperate to now focus on because all the first-hand witnesses backed him up?

:lamo

**** man, who do you think you're fooling? Don't you realize how telling it is that all you can ever do to defend Trump is to splutter something something Democrat conspiracy something something? Don't you realize how blatantly you are telegraphing that the only reason you all changed your tune about wanting to hear from the whistleblower (or any witnesses for that matter) is so you can put on political theater in service of your truther-worthy CTs?





Anyway, you should probably wait until all this plays out but most likely until Nov 2020 to find out whether or not the impeachment inquiry matters. In 2020, the worshipped lout will not be facing the least popular Democrat candidate ever, and the candidate he does face will not have idiotically ignored a few key states on the campaign trail. He'll only have his base and those people willing to throw America's reputation/values in the trash if it means stacking the Supreme Court in a way they'd like.
Click to expand...

Taylor said:
Mr Person said:
The whistleblower you spent months saying did not matter
Click to expand...

You must have me confused with the OP.

Mr Person said:
The whistleblower you are desperate to now focus on because all the first-hand witnesses backed him up?
Click to expand...


Everyone has been focused on the "whistleblower" until recently when the Democrats suddenly declared that he "didn't matter". Please try to keep up with the news, it may help you look a little less foolish and a little less ignorant with some of your posts.
Click to expand...

1. Nice edits. Efficiency is wonderful!

2. Nope. I apparently do not have you confused at all.

3. Ah, so that's why you edited my quote down to nothing. It's not about efficiency at all. It's about cutting out the entire point in the hope that both I and everybody else would be too lazy to work out who said what.


As expected, I receive lies. At first everybody was indeed focused on the whistleblower because that was at the beginning, when everything broke. But eventually the Trump WH released an edited-down memo that they called a "transcript", and people then focused on that because it was so damning in of itself. But THEN people focused on whether Democrats would have an impeachment inquiry. At this point, Trump's tireless defenders decided we MUST NOT listen to the whistleblower because, according to them, the whistleblower only had second and third hand information, so nobody should hear from him. (Remember? Well, don't worry. I know you do, lies aside).

But the impeachment inquiry started and everybody was focused on the first hand information witnesses because they were first hand information witnesses. Those further backed up the whistleblower. This is where the bifurcation happened.

At this point, people who are not constantly lying to defend Trump focused less on the whistleblower. Why bother when we were finally getting information from first-hand witnesses?

At that point, Trump's tireless defenders switched from saying we MUST NOT hear from the whistleblower to saying they MUST. Anything to take attention of the first hand witnesses, right?




Naturally, you and the rest of his defenders ONLY have a problem with not hearing from the whistleblower. You still think we MUST NOT hear from Trump or from any loyal Trump minions who are obeying his order not to cooperate.
 
Last edited:
Law and Order Republicans don't care about extortion from an american POLITICIAN.

that's just messed up.
 
lemmiwinx said:
I remember when the press hounded Nixon out of office there was whistleblower John Dean who became a media hero. Why shouldn't this whistleblower be rewarded likewise?
Click to expand...

Why should he be? He anonymously reported second hand information. The folks testifying publicly to first hand information are the ones who deserve to be rewarded, wouldn't you agree?
 
lwf said:
The whistleblower stopped mattering when other more credible witnesses and the White House corroborated everything he alleged. Since there is nothing new he can tell us, and everything in his report has been corroborated by other known witnesses, why does he matter?
Click to expand...
Why do you say there is nothing new he can tell us? Why assume that everything he knows has been "alleged" or was included in his report?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom