The House will never see the Whistleblower complaint

[edhopper]

They will stonewall all the way to the SC and even if they rule against Trump, he will still hold it back.
The House has still not seen the full,, unredacted Mueller Report.

Unless it is leaked, it will never see the light of day.

It's how fascism works.

[woodsprite]

1. We need real patriots to start leaking this stuff.

There seems to be a drastic shortage of people who are in positions with access to the information needed by the House who are willing to put our country and the rule of law before self preservation and enrichment.

[StarfishSaver]

2. That's easy to say when it's not you putting yourself in jeopardy

It's one thing to hope that someone in one of these positions tan and will leak the information, but it's not fair to accuse them of being unpatriotic or being unwilling "to put our country and the rule of law before self preservation and enrichment." I wonder how many of us would be willing to risk everything if we were in the same position.

[Mr.Bill]

10. I would do it in a heartbeat.

And I'm not kidding.

[StarfishSaver]

11. I don't think any of us can say that for sure unless we're actually in the situation.

I like to think I would, but that's easy to say unless and until actually faced with the choice and consequences.

[Mr.Bill]

14. My mindset is to be thinking

about the consequences of not doing it.

[DemocracyMouse]

18. I've been a whistleblower. It's not that hard and it felt damn good!

[StarfishSaver]

22. That's great

When you did that, did you put yourself in the crosshairs of a corrupt Commander-in -Chief, the nation's top law enforcement officer, the Director of National Intelligence, 3/4 of Congress and a cabal of rabid MAGAts?

[Python boot]

44. Reality Winner

Reality Winner is locked in a cell for five years.

[StarfishSaver]

45. What does that have to do with my question?

[emmaverybo]

51. Agree that we can talk big but this is one big corrupt, international gang. And Trump would not

hesitate to go after family. A whistle-blower could fear some crazed Trump supporter if her name got out, going after loved ones. So many personal and legal repercussions.

[Pacifist Patriot]

54. That last bit gives me pause way more than being in the crosshairs of a corrupt administration.

They are a real and present danger. Heck, I got death and rape threats in 2018 simply for filing to run for office as a Democrat in a staunchly Republican district. And those threats came from all over the country, not my district, and it was a freaking state level race - not even federal. The stress of it contributed to me dropping out of the race after only 10 weeks.

I'd love to think I'd leak for the good of the country, but if it put my family's lives at risk? I simply don't know. I doubt I'd have the fortitude to do it.

[Cheviteau]

43. As A Vietnam Vet

When the Lt. asks who's taking point, and no one else steps up, you step up. Not because you're the bravest, but to keep unity in the ranks. Plus, it keeps the Lt. from having to assign someone. Sooner, rather than later, you won't have to volunteer for a while. Someone or several someones will have to bite the bit and come forward. At a personal cost? For sure. But, it's got to be done. Would I? Without a doubt. Of course, at 80 years old life in prison would be a cakewalk; considering the good I would be doing for my country.

[mcar]

21. Ask Reality Winner

[MontanaMama]

24. You beat me to it.

She may never see the light of day again.

[Mr.Bill]

26. What makes you say that?

She was sentenced to five years. Any Democratic president should pardon her.

[MontanaMama]

33. I don't think she will get a pardon

and further I don’t think that she will be released easily. I don't claim to be an expert on such things but it does seem that we as a society like to say we support whistleblowers but the reality is we throw the book at them whenever possible.

[Mr.Bill]

36. But five years for a 27 year old

is hardly never seeing the light of day again.

[MontanaMama]

47. Sorry for my exaggeration...

I did do that... but I would be surprised if her life were easy after this...will she be able to get a job? Who would hire her after this? I want her to have a good life after she is released, but I can’t help but wonder if this won’t follow her wherever she goes and I guess that’s what I’m talking about. She might be out of prison but she will be a marked woman.

[Mr.Bill]

48. Well, there's always politics.

[Mr.Bill]

27. Do you have any idea what risks were being taken

by those who signed the Declaration of Independence?

[mcar]

28. Um, yes, I do

[Evolve Dammit]

42. Yep. You gotta stand up for what's right and damn the torpedoes. Farragut/Petty...

[Ramsey Barner]

23. "We need real patriots to start leaking this stuff."

Yes: Daniel Ellsberg called for this some time ago.

[rainy]

39. We can't expect them to make such

risks when our own party is so cowardly. Too afraid they will lose election

[Takket]

3. Hey! Where is the unredacted report????

[Quemado]

4. We have a flawed system of government.

The Department of Justice and other law enforcement aspects of the government are not separate from the executive branch.

The House can "jail" people, hold them in contempt, etc., but, in the end, the House cannot force someone to cooperate.

[genxlib]

5. Here is my question

Is there anything preventing the whistleblower from making themselves known to the House and agreeing to testify as to the contents of the report?

Even if it is closed session, it would be a way around the obstruction.

I don't see how the White House could stop this considering the whistle blower is hostile to them.

[Mike 03]

7. Adam Schiff advised the whistleblower not to do an end-run

like that because if the whistleblower deviates from certain rules in any way whatsoever he/she loses certain protections guaranteed under the whistleblower laws. But it's a good question. This is different than other whistleblower situations because he/she already has the blessing of the Inspector General, so (not being a lawyer) I don't actually see the danger of going public.

[StarfishSaver]

13. They could be prosecuted for a crime

[duforsure]

6. The witness

Now needs to go before the House on TV for the public to hear tit from the source. They should be protected very closely or trump or Putin will have them suicided like Epstein was done.

[StarfishSaver]

8. It would be a crime for them to testify

[meadowlander]

50. So is withholding the report from Congress.

If they aren't going to respect the rule of law, why should the whistleblower?

[StarfishSaver]

53. You're talking about two different things

Trump's people, not the whistleblower, are withholding the report. They are violating the law.

The whistleblower has done nothing wrong, but if he testifies, he breaks the law, loses his whistleblower protection and will surely open himself up to being prosecuted by the Trump Justice Department.

Two different things.

[Golden Raisin]

9. I'm only amazed sleazeball Barr hasn't already issued

one of his edited, fumigated and bowdlerized 4-page "summaries" of the complaint, a la what he did for the Mueller Report.

[kentuck]

12. Trump is already riffing the lies.

Nothing will be unredacted.

[uponit7771]

15. K&R, Contempt of congress should be both judicial and congressional approved using both ...

... the marshals and house sergeant at arms

[Scalded Nun]

16. I was under the impression that the turning over of the report was directed by law.

If that is true, then start locking everyone up who obstructs.

Someone has to actually step up at some point or we are truly doomed as a nation.

[garybeck]

49. are you serious?

since when does the law have anything to do with Trump's actions. For him it is something to ignore. the only laws that could save us from him are the laws around impeachment and elections.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. Then the DNI should never see the light of day again

If he doesn't produce the report by his scheduled appearance Thursday, lock him up under inherent contempt.

[McKim]

19. Couldn't The Whistleblower Lead It?

Couldn’t the Whistleblower just leak it herself?

[Ramsey Barner]

20. The complaint may yet come out.

"Unless it is leaked, it will never see the light of day. " That is quite possibly true—but remember that the motivation of most whistleblowers is to see that justice is done. Exposed whistleblowers often face enormous personal and professional backlash, but most say they didn't regret blowing the whistle. I have faith that whatever motivated this whistleblower to submit a complaint through official channels will motivate her/him to make sure the complaint reaches someone who can act on it. (I was a whistleblower in an executive branch agency.)

[paleotn]

25. Yes, we will....

Our republic has seen crises as grave as this before and survived. We will survive this one too.

We have a choice. Throw in the towel, pack up and leave or join the fight. Your choice.

Sorry....tired of the boo hooing.

[cbdo2007]

29. Congress should just call the whistleblower to testify privately...

There's nothing wrong with that.

[StarfishSaver]

31. That would subject the whistleblower to criminal prosecution

And Congress has no way to immunize him from that.

[DallasNE]

35. I Doubt Congress Even Knows The Name Of The Whistleblower n/t

[DallasNE]

30. Sorry To Say, I Agree 100%

The House jail hasn't been used in decades so it probably isn't suitable for prisoners at this time so I doubt contempt charges and fines will jar it loose.

[StarfishSaver]

32. Fines are doable

But I don't know how effective they'll be

[wiggs]

34. Wondering how much congress (gop and dems) really want to see

things they are entitled/duty-bound to see...such as full Mueller report, counter-intelligence investigations, tax returns, and of course the actual whistleblower complaint (not just transcripts from one call that may not even be the call the whistleblower is referring to). Same goes for all the witnesses who congress calls to testify but are blocked from full testimony by the WH...is congress fine with NOT hearing the whole truth?

Perhaps...the more congress knows, the fewer choices they have. If for instance, they were made privy to findings that corroborate Seth Abramson's assertions or the whistleblower's assertions (which may relate to Seth's) then they would have little choice but to proceed with impeachment regardless of consequences to elections or other plans they might be entertaining (resignation, legislation, etc). No more case-building, no more timing decisions, no more seat protection.

So...how hard are they trying (dems and gop) to really get to the bottom of this in a timely manner? GOP isn't trying at all, of course, leaving dems to do the hard work and make the hard decisions. Just trying to figure out what the dem strategy is, trying to make sense of the delays...trying to allow for benefit of the doubt. To some degree, you can't be held to task for what you don't know...

congress doesn't have to wait for SC to weigh in on every action, statement, finding of contempt, or subpoena.

[BlueJac]

37. True!

[warmfeet]

38. Time to give up then, I guess.

Oh wait. Hell fucking no!

Giving up is death. I will not go gently into that good night. I will burn and rave. I will rage against it all until I am unable to fight any longer. Fuck giving up.

My apologies to Dylan Thomas and his estate.

[spanone]

40. ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧⇧ ⇧ 👍🏼

[kwolf68]

46. I think he'd be OK with your literary license.

!!!

[CaptainTruth]

41. If what you say turns out to be true ...

"They will stonewall all the way to the SC and even if they rule against Trump, he will still hold it back."

Can Trump be jailed for that? Contempt of court or something?

[get the red out]

52. Agree

I am so cynical at this point that when I see various liberals saying this would be the thing that brought Trump down I would just laugh.