11-04-2019, 03:32 PM
(11-04-2019, 03:18 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I don't know if this was intentionally directed at anyone, but you might as well have tagged me in this. I don't think I've said anything on this subject at all on this board (or anywhere). It started at all as he said/she said so I couldn't really make an opinion either way. It seemed reasonable to wait for evidence and facts instead of the initially breaking news story. No point in being outraged over the latest history changing story only to have it reacted the next day. I think I can answer this question without forming I complete opinion on the whole situation - as I haven't done that yet.
The whistle blowers report was the definition of hearsay. He had no evidence, but heard through the grapevine something happened. Should that give you official whistleblower status is another debate I guess, but in this case he is being treated as a whistle blower. Whether he gets the official status or not - I'm okay with someone speaking up if they think something is wrong even if they don't have the evidence. You shouldn't have to go full blown Snowden to be able to say something. It's just a matter of what constitutes an official whistleblower is what I'm getting at here.
I think the evidence should speak for itself and whistle blowers should not have to come forward publicly. I stand by that. The problem is what evidence is this whistleblower standing by? He's standing behind a rumor that accuses Trump of wrongdoing.
If the whistle blower chooses to say nothing more, I don't think he should have to be identified. If he testifies in any capacity to investigators, then his words have to be able to be cross-examined. Evidence that can be verified wouldn't require the person presenting to be cross-examined, but he hasn't presented any.
Is it illegal for a politician to solicit the help of a foreign government with an election? Yes or no.
