Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Impeachment: Trump's son tweets name of alleged whistleblower [View all]AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)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"
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
48 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
FU*K Jr.,.. Junior just put the "whistleblower" in grave danger. Junior should be arrested.
Stuart G
Nov 2019
#1
Totally agree and the issue about taking the rusky dirt meeting. It led to this!
MartyTheGreek
Nov 2019
#25
So did he simply parrot it or did he confirm it? If he simply parroted it then its nothing but if he
cstanleytech
Nov 2019
#2
Unfortunately, according to the experts in this area, divulging the whistleblower's identity isn't
onenote
Nov 2019
#18
Maybe it's not a crime just to disclose the name, but what if disclosing the name
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2019
#26
No. I'd go into court with evidence supporting every element of the offense.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2019
#43
"[The Whistleblower Protection Act] provides no protection. It's the worst-named statute..."
lagomorph777
Nov 2019
#48
if a democrat did something like this , ohm my goodness. jaumpain jehosapahat
AllaN01Bear
Nov 2019
#3
If anything happens to the person he named, whether they are the whistleblower or not,
Arkansas Granny
Nov 2019
#5
You could argue that the disclosure itself is a form of retaliation.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2019
#27
It's all just smoke and mirrors. It makes no difference at all who the whistleblower is.
Nitram
Nov 2019
#10
Not to thinking folks; but having a Dem scapegoat provides continuation of the witch hunt narrative.
JudyM
Nov 2019
#20
Yep, they just need some colorable justification, however strained. Saw one of his minions asked
JudyM
Nov 2019
#38