Impeachment Hearings

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 10:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: But again, that is against the law. Whistleblowers are protected. It was this Congress that (I guess) put the current protections in place, and for good reasons that especially in this case apply.
How could it be justified that all these protections this individual relied on when he came forward are now called null and void?

If there were a relevant accusation on the table that only the whistleblower bears witness to, I might at least understand your position on that. But there is no such thing. You would take away the guarantees this individual was operating under just to expose him for no reason. Which should be a scary thought.

As I read it the law: Whistleblower's identity will remain confidential and the whistleblower is free of reprisal. I'm not sure the whistleblower's identity must be kept a secret to the courts.

Perhaps it's the language barrier or being a member of this forum too long; but nowhere have I suggested the whistleblower's identity should be made public (aka exposed). So perhaps you can now be less scared. 

i will say this when we had Mueller the mantra was: We must go where the "evidence leads" and not narrow the scope of the investigation. When it comes to what Biden did and how his son got paid millions of dollars for working in Ukrainian energy, while knowing nothing about Ukraine or energy, tne narrative is: we must keep the scope of the investigation narrow.