When one of my sons was very young he had an imaginary friend whom he called Sammy. My wife and I have taken to referring to the Dems' imaginary "whistleblower" as Sammy.
And it turns out, according to the WaPo (via GP) that the Dems want to keep Sammy imaginary:
House Democrats are weighing extraordinary steps to secure testimony from a whistleblower whose complaint prompted an impeachment inquiry, masking his identity to prevent President Trump’s congressional allies from exposing the individual, according to three officials familiar with the deliberations.
The steps under consideration include having the whistleblower testify from a remote location and obscuring the individual’s appearance and voice, these officials said.
Andrew P. Bakaj, a lawyer representing the whistleblower, sent a letter to acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire expressing fears for his client’s safety. Bakaj also noted that “certain individuals” have issued a $50,000 “bounty” for “any information” relating to his client’s identity.
Um, is there a problem with an accuser's identity being known? In the past Trump has had many accusers. To the best of my knowledge their identities have all been revealed--indeed, these accusers appeared eager to have their identities known. Their accusations were regularly claimed by the Dems' media surrogates to be a threat to Trump's presidency, yet they didn't appear to fear for their safety. In the circumstances, I think the American public is owed an explanation--a very specific explanation--for why this lawyer Bakaj has "fears for his client's safety." Further it seems distinctly Un-American to withhold the identity of an accuser without such an explanation.
I understand this isn't a criminal proceeding-although Dems are expressing the desire that Trump be placed in solitary confinement. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to me that in such a consequential proceeding the spirit of the Sixth Amendment should govern:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
It seems only a matter of time before the American people will reject this patently unfair inquisition.
His connections to the Democratic Party must be absolutely catastrophic for them to go these lengths to hide his identity. There is no way the Democrats can proceed here either ethically, or even politically, with a witness that won't appear in public to testify and face cross examination.ReplyDelete
Or, if not to the actual party, certainly to the Establishment/Deep State.Delete
It seems to me that if the accuser isn't made available before a vote the Senate should refuse to accept it.
Yancey, I just posted a very short bit that explains what the hangup is:Delete
"the whistleblower ... had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician."
So, as you say, connections to the party itself.
This man must be outed. You don't get to accuse the President of this type of stuff, disregard procedures on how to process as a whistleblower and then get to remain anonymous. This is preposterous.ReplyDelete
This is great -- the Dems are in full panic mode. I love it.
This is not a whistleblower, not entitled to protections under that law.Delete
Is he entitled to protection under ICIG Atkinson’s new (and wide open) “rumorblower” law?Delete
What nobody is talking about is whether the change is actually valid. The question is whether Atkinson validly changed the regulations, which call for first hand knowledge. Sooner or later I think we'll learn that it wasn't validly done, didn't go through required process.Delete
He's a fink; a rat fink.ReplyDelete
The latest fad on the Left is the conjuring up of bodily harm or worse. We’ve seen such luminaries as Alyssa Milano (who?) breathlessly state that they have received death threats (!!!). So it is just a hop and a skip for this low life attorney for the rumor blower to set up another of those little mind manipulations. His client fears for (fill in the blank). Mostly, his client fears being caught out doing things he shouldn’t have done (as CIA or FBI or whatever federal agency) or just plain lying. Unless he fears that those who employed his services, seeing that he is becoming a problem, might off him to cover their own misdeeds? Is the web getting too tangled for him? Or does he exist?ReplyDelete
Tells you a lot about them.Delete
I have it on good authority that Mark's speculation regarding the blower's name is correct.ReplyDelete
The purported blower is Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, who is deeply fearful for his life, having turned government witness against other highly powerful and highly placed persons of public notoriety. It's imperative that Gravano's identifying information and location be kept under wraps due to his deep knowledge of mob-controlled construction rackets closely tied to the real estate development community.
This reporting is subject to confirmation.