Impeachment: Trump's son tweets name of alleged whistleblower

[MartyTheGreek]

Source: Yahoo News

Washington (AFP) - President Donald Trump's son published on Wednesday the name of the alleged anonymous whistleblower whose complaint fired the impeachment inquiry against Trump, breaking strict conventions for protecting officials who reveal wrongdoing in government.

Amid calls by the president himself to expose the whistleblower, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted the name of a CIA analyst which has circulated online for weeks, and linked to a Breitbart news article implying the person was pro-Democrat and anti-Trump.

AFP could not independently verify the whistleblower's identity and is not publishing the name.

But the revelation by the president's son comes as the White House seeks to discredit the mounting impeachment effort in Congress against Trump, painting it as driven by politics.

Read more: https://news.yahoo.com/impeachment-trumps-son-tweets-name-alleged-whistleblower-154514305.html

---

Maybe it was decided, Jr. does not have anything to lose for Big Daddy.

[Stuart G]

1. FU*K Jr.,.. Junior just put the "whistleblower" in grave danger. Junior should be arrested.

[0rganism]

4. he put *someone* in grave danger

might be the whistleblower, might not. now that person and everyone with a similar name and all their immediate families are at risk.
this enemies-list-style criminal bullshit needs to be stomped out pronto. unfortunately, no one can and/or will do it.
certainly not AG Barr.

[DENVERPOPS]

12. worse yet

Worse yet, is it puts a damper on anyone else coming forward on any matter whatsoever. The whistleblower's name/identity is supposed to be kept completely confidential. And more importantly, people who have information will be reluctant to come forth to blow the whistle or testify, now or in the future.......

[0rganism]

13. an entire nation held hostage to an insatiable ego

i hope there's a way back from here

[DENVERPOPS]

15. And worse yet

With today's news of Donnie Jr. publicly naming the whistleblower I doubt ANY whistleblower now or in the future will be thinking about being in a history book or their 15 minutes of fame. Their only thoughts will be surviving until they testify and afterwards.

My question would be, how did Donnie Jr, Linsey Graham, etc etc etc all find out the name/identity of the whistleblower??????????

Especially on something this momentous, that person not only has to worry about Trump, The Republicans in Congress, all their 50 million MAGGOT followers, but even foreign governments and U.S. Corporations that will be rocked by us impeaching their leader.

[0rganism]

17. this impacts more than whistleblowers

it's a call for utter subjugation to everyone in government
"bow down to Dear Leader, or we expose you and your family, or maybe some random person and their family, to an endless stream of character vandalism and death threats. doesn't have to be related to anything you actually worked on, we'll make it up if we want to."
Tangeranus has queued up some gravely criminal abuses of power

[Maxheader]

11. STumpys kids would be like fish out of the water..

if the little brats had to make it in this world on their own initiative...guaranteed..

[MartyTheGreek]

25. Totally agree and the issue about taking the rusky dirt meeting. It led to this!

[cstanleytech]

2. So did he simply parrot it or did he confirm it? If he simply parroted it then its nothing but if he

confirmed it then would that in of itself be a crime on his part?

[lagomorph777]

8. It would definitely be a crime by whoever gave Turd Jr the name.

Assuming they (or somebody in the filthy chain of provenance) is a Federal employee.

[onenote]

18. Unfortunately, according to the experts in this area, divulging the whistleblower's identity isn't

a crime (even though it should be).

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776481504/can-trump-legally-out-the-whistleblower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Maybe it's not a crime just to disclose the name, but what if disclosing the name

is intended to cause or results in retaliation, which is what the statute was intended to address?

[AncientGeezer]

29. You would have to prove "intent"....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Of course; but it seems pretty obvious.

[AncientGeezer]

32. I don't recall.."but it seems pretty obvious" as a standard for

.....for charging anyone.
I just read the 4&5th amendments again...I don't see the "but it seems pretty obvious" part.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

41. Oh, hell, I know that.

I'm a retired lawyer who once taught constitutional law, so I know very well that they'd have to prove intent. My shorthand comment was intended only to point out that there seems to be quite a bit of evidence, from many statements made by Trump and various members of Congres that the GOPers' desire to disclose the whistleblower's name was for the purpose of discrediting and disparaging him. If that isn't retaliation I don't know what is.

BTW, the 4th Amendment has only to do with unreasonable searches and seizures; the 5th Amendment covers double jeopardy, the right to confront witnesses and due process, but doesn't address the standard of proof. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt has always been required in criminal cases under common law, but it wasn't until in re Winship in 1970 that the Supreme Court held that it is a constitutional requirement of due process.

[AncientGeezer]

42. I know what the 4th means/says..as well as the 5th.

I used them ONLY as counter to your "but it seems pretty obvious "rationalization".
Would you go into court with a "but it seems pretty obvious." prosecution?
Would you go into court with a "but it seems pretty obvious." defense?

I'd hope not in either case..the prosecution would get thrashed by the Judge and the defendant would have 100 reasons to appeal...on the "pure idiocy clause"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. No. I'd go into court with evidence supporting every element of the offense.

My point was that there does seem to be substantial evidence; but clearly if it is to be the basis of a prosecution it would have to be documented and evaluated as to its weight and credibility, as in any other case. I wasn't trying to suggest that an offhand remark on an internet message board is the equivalent of evidence to be presented in court.

The WB statute itself doesn't specify penalties, so this discussion is purely academic.

[jberryhill]

45. You're on the wrong track

First let’s identify the statute in question.

The relevant statute is 5 USC 2302. It prohibits certain types of personnel actions in response to someone reporting violations of law. It was nothing to do with identifying anyone, and certainly doesn’t apply to Jr.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

46. Yes. I looked up the statute earlier.

I was incoherently trying to explain a couple of different and somewhat irrelevant points. The statute itself doesn't have a lot of teeth and applies only to government agencies. I do think that identifying a whistleblower could be construed as a form of retaliation under some circumstances.

[Igel]

31. Hence the use of the term "convention" in the OP. n/t

[AncientGeezer]

28. No it wouldn't be

[lagomorph777]

48. "[The Whistleblower Protection Act] provides no protection. It's the worst-named statute..."

Son of a bitch! Add the WPA to the list of repairs needed after Pres. Turd and his minions are banished.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776481504/can-trump-legally-out-the-whistleblower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law

[AllaN01Bear]

3. if a democrat did something like this , ohm my goodness. jaumpain jehosapahat

[Igel]

33. Every year a lot of classified and confidential things get leaked.

The response is either, "How dare they!" or "what a patriot!"

It's like taking steps to prevent leaks or punish them: The response is either "how fascist of them!" or "good, confidentiality is important."

The laws are the same in both cases. What's different is the willingness to enforce the law over preference.

I don't like when confidential information is leaked. I'm pretty much always on the "how dare they!" side.

[Arkansas Granny]

5. If anything happens to the person he named, whether they are the whistleblower or not,

Trump Jr. should be held responsible. There are Trump supporters out there who would act on that info. Think of the pipe bomber.

[lagomorph777]

6. Any Federal employee doing this would be committing a crime.

Turd Jr might be immune?

However, whoever gave Turd Jr the name, has committed a crime.

[onenote]

19. See post 18

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. You could argue that the disclosure itself is a form of retaliation.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

44. The statute, unfortunately, has no teeth.

Outing the WB probably constitutes retaliation but there are no specific consequences for the outer. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/06/yes-outing-whistleblower-is-against-law-law-is-toothless/

[trueblue2007]

7. LOCK HIM UP!!! 40 YEARS HARD LABOR IN JAIL FOR JR.

[AncientGeezer]

35. For???? It's not a crime

[Stuart G]

9. I guess Junior is just as stupid as his father...

Hard to believe he could be "stupider" WAIT, JUNIOR TWEETED THE NAME, UPON ORDERS FROM HIS FATHER!!!!!!

.............that is the reason this was done.....

[Nitram]

10. It's all just smoke and mirrors. It makes no difference at all who the whistleblower is.

All the evidence in the inquiry is coming from other witnesses.

[JudyM]

20. Not to thinking folks; but having a Dem scapegoat provides continuation of the witch hunt narrative.

Last edited Wed Nov 6, 2019, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)

And that’s all tRump needs to stay afloat with his minions.

[Nitram]

21. The minions really don't care what he does.

[JudyM]

38. Yep, they just need some colorable justification, however strained. Saw one of his minions asked

today if it’d really be ok with her if tRump actually shot someone on 5th Ave. Her response? “Depends what he shot them for.” And you could see that she thought herself so clever for coming up with this defense/parry.

[Nitram]

39. Must be something in the water that produces these Trump Mutants.They have no values, no principles,

no knowledge, and no intellect. Maybe they are harbingers of the zombie apocalypse.

[JudyM]

40. .

Funny and chilling at the same time.

[pwb]

14. Yea because Trust fund brats are all above the law.

Just like daddy Donny.

[Raine]

16. The name's been out on the internet

for a couple of weeks already.

[AncientGeezer]

36. It has....

[sakabatou]

22. Junior could've broke federal law by doing this

[AncientGeezer]

37. No...actually not.

[elias7]

23. The storm is already here. Who cares who forecasted it?

[Aussie105]

24. Really need a snowstorm here . . .

Need hundreds of people to contact the radio stations, TV stations and print media with the same complaint.

"Hey, that whistleblower guy? It ain't him, 'caus it is me. And that ain't my name!"

[olddad65]

47. Its his brother

His brother has been blowing his dad’s whistle and he is jealous. So is his sister.