113

In terms of what new information of substance can the whistle-blower bring to the fore that is not already confirmed or refuted by more closely engaged sources, there is no purpose and nothing for the whistle-blower to offer. Since the allegations have been corroborated, and more, it seems, the purpose of the whistle-blower is more key for the defense of ...


79

Mistaken identity It's not clear that the person named by RealClearInvestigations is the actual whistleblower. According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, that website has mixed factual reporting and has frequently run "emotionally loaded headlines" of which they give a few examples. Given the uncertainty as to whether this is the actual whistleblower, it's not ...


57

The origins of the "identifying" of the whistle-blower come not from any actual fact or confirmation, but from speculation from a right-wing agenda site that bases the speculation upon similar characteristics matching between this person and the description of the whistle-blower. The obvious problem with the identification is that it has not been factually ...


56

There are at least 3 motives to get the whistleblower to testify: Fact finding to figure out what actually happened. Retaliation to discourage and intimidate potential future whistleblowers, and also to discourage and intimidate witnesses. Distraction not only to literally distract from the core question of the impeachment, but also as a vital component of ...


42

Yes, the constitution allows pardoning people who haven't been charged. Reduction of a sentence is not technically considered pardoning. A President can pardon someone who hasn't be charged. Pardons make an individual immune to any conviction in future. Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President the right to pardon: [The ...


38

Yes, from the August 26 letter from the Inspector General to the Acting Director of National Intelligence as published by the NY Times: Having determined that the complaint relating to the urgent concern appears credible, I am transmitting to you this notice of my determination, along with the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix.


36

On Trump-leaning side of the media, it's taken as evidence of some big Democratic conspiracy to bring down Trump. Trump himself claimed that Schiff "helped write" the whistleblower's complaint. This has been repeated by pro-Trump media personalities like Tucker Carlson, although even Carlson only presented the collaborative writing bit as "credible rumours"; ...


34

President Trump does, he tweeted on Sunday November 17th: Where is the Fake Whistleblower? PoloHoleSet is right in their answer by saying that there's no evidence that having the whistleblower testify will provide additional insights. What is in the whistleblower report can either be supported by other evidence or it cannot. Forcing the whistleblower ...


31

"We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower," he said. "We would like to, but I'm sure the whistleblower has concerns, that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national intelligence just as to how he is to communicate with Congress." CNN Fact Check: Fact-checking Schiff's claim on speaking with ...


25

In the US, being a whistleblower is a status that is protected against retaliation by several federal laws. This is to encourage good behavior in government by acting as a check on illegal behavior. President Trump has already engaged in stochastic terrorism by stating that the whistleblower should be executed for treason as a spy. So by refusing to ...


23

The whistleblower made his report to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on August 12, 2019. 14 days later (August 26), the Inspector General determined that it was a credible report of an "urgent concern" (the statutory standard for this sort of report) and forwarded it to the Director of National Intelligence to forward to the Congressional ...


21

At the very least there is an ethical obligation to report. Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch: § 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service. (b) General principles. The following general principles apply to every employee and may form the basis for the standards contained in this part. (11) ...


18

Reportedly the whistle-blower is a CIA officer. CIA officers take the United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office, which requires them to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and ...


16

Facebook has stated that: "Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content ‘outing of witness, informant, or activist.’ We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by ...


16

The complaint "appeared credible" per the "Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints" In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ...


15

In the context of impeachment, something is a big deal if the voters think it is. The voters, after all, have the power to re-elect both the President and the Congress, or not. So their opinions matter. Something that swings even 1% of voters one way or the other is likely to change the results of some elections and could even swing the 2020 Presidency. ...


15

As far as I am aware, pardoning means to reduce a sentence. That's commutation. While that's part of the pardon power in the United States, that's not actually a pardon. As per Wikipedia: A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if never convicted. ...


14

At this point though, why is it so important who the whistleblower is? It is "important" if your intention is to harass and intimidate the whistle-blower as well as other potential whistle-blowers. Like the threats made by Representative Matt Gaez to Cohen prior to Cohen's testimony before Congress. Or Roger Stone referring to a pivot Godfather 2 scene ...


11

'Fruit of the poisonous tree' is a common defense in criminal court when the defense is having difficulty refuting the prosecutor's arguments on their merits. Basically, if you can go back and prove that the original source is in some way faulty or illegal, then everything that happened because of that one source can be ruled inadmissible. Republicans are ...


9

Trump cares, and he thinks that he can make the public care too. He believes that if he knows who the whistle blower is, he can jump on Twitter and start systematically discrediting them and doing his usual "Trump thing". You're right though, at this point it doesn't really matter. They've had the same testimony from a half-dozen witnesses, and there's ...


8

Ecuador, apparently. Ecuador has an established tradition of granting succor to those who feel the United States should be open to breaches of National Security. Julian Assange1, the famed Wiki-leaker also had a relationship with the President of Ecuador, and has been holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. While Ecuador does have an ...


8

The terms are not synonymous: A dissident is someone who actively opposes the official policies. While it's true that the term was once used almost exclusively for vocal critics of Eastern bloc regimes, nowadays it's used for any notable figures that critisize a goverment's established policies on a philosophical, ideological or political level. For a non ...


7

Counting on whistle blowers to keep companies honest is never going to work. Despite the handful of laws protecting them, becoming a whistle blower is essentially career suicide. Whistle blowers aren't compensated in any meaningful way, they'll likely have to find a new job in a completely different industry and even then their trustworthiness would likely ...


6

It's morally wrong, because it supports retaliation, and thus discourages future whistleblowers from speaking up. It's morally wrong, because it invites crimes against the whistleblower. Members of a major US party have already ambiguously asked for the whistleblower's head. It serves to distract from the story at hand. Major US newspapers have already been ...


6

If it were a criminal trial, the whistleblower’s (WB) report, being hearsay, would not be admissible, and anyone attempting to do so would be reprimanded. However, as in an answer, the investigators would not be reprimanded for looking for other evidence. But this is not a criminal trial, it is the investigation, so different rules apply. And those ...


5

One influential way to describe cultural differences is Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. Wikipedia provides some background on the methodology so I won't get into the details but the interesting thing is that Germany is very close to the US along four of the five dimensions, with only a moderate difference in the “individualism-collectivism” ...


5

Assuming that they do get summoned and do show up, how would their anonymity be preserved? Is there any precedent to bringing in an anonymous person that we can look to for an example? Whistleblower.org has an example from a similar (though probably not as high profile) situation in the US (emphasis mine): An IRS hearing in September 1997 illustrated the ...


5

I imagine the whistleblower cares about themselves a whole lot. The United States places considerable protection on whistleblowers in both the government and private industries. Revealing or implying to have information about their identity is still a very sensitive subject - regardless of his credibility or lack thereof due to his identity. It may ...


4

There are some journalistic standards that may come into play. First, it's typical to have multiple independent sources before reporting a fact, especially if it's the reliability of the first source is at all questionable. Sometimes they will report that another reputable news outlet is reporting something, but that usually comes with disclaimers like, "...


4

Obama is likely referring to this executive order, called Presidential Policy Directive 19, which allows whisteblowers within the intelligence community to report waste, fraud, and abuse without fear of retaliation. This appears to cover internal reporting, not public whistleblowing or public revelations about classified NSA programs. Snowden could have ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible