Has he been outed?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 133
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I have seen a few reports that the Trump/Ukraine whistleblower has been named. The most recent was from Bill Reilly who has  said he hasn't a problem revealing the name and has named the whistleblower on his website No Spin News . O'Reilly says the whistleblower  is "a 33 year old CIA annalist who worked with Joe Biden and worked in the Obama administration". 

"O'Reilly joing John Bachman and reveals details of the whistleblower on the Ukraine call and links him to the Democratic party and the Obama administration making him a compromised witness".


Is it everyone who knows the identity of the whistleblower except me?


#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
There have been several names that have been floated I think. I'm not sure if there is a determination of who it actually was. 

But who the whistleblower was is completely irrelevant at this point. Imagine a guy hears his neighbor beating his wife and calls the cops. The cops show up and find the guy in the process of beating his wife. But instead of trying to argue why he wasn't actually beating his wife, or why it wasn't what is looks like, he focuses on finding out who called the cops on him. It doesn't matter who called the cops. The thing that matters is that witnesses have confirmed most of what was in the whistle blower report. 

The only reason I see the whistleblower as important at this point is that the republican obsession with outing him is putting his/her life at risk. They are putting a patriot's life in jeopardy to score political points. 
#3
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
if you want your analogy to apply it should be worded correctly in context,  that the cops show up and they can't tell if there has been domestic violence or not, the wife says there was not, just like Ukraine saying there was no wrong doings with regards to the democrat's charges, so.......
#4
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
hat the cops show up and they can't tell if there has been domestic violence or not, the wife says there was not, just like Ukraine saying there was no wrong doings with regards to the democrat's charges,
Except that there is indisputable evidence he is guilty. Trump's call transcript shows 1 crime clearly (asking for the dirt) and is strong evidence for a 2nd. And there are now multiple witnesses that all confirm the 2nd crime happened too. He also then engaged in witness tampering and obstruction of justice. 

So to put it in context of my example it would be: the police show up, find the wife beaten and on the floor, and 5 or 6 people who saw it happen all say he did it. He then threatens those 5 or 6 people to not talk as well as a bunch of other people. 


#5
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
strong evidence
is "indisputable evidence he is guilty"?
 multiple witnesses that all confirm the 2nd crime happened too.
oh I have heard about that, all I have heard is second,third etc hand information.

He also then engaged in witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
that also must be something new as I haven't heard of that either.

when is the trial?  is the impeachment inquiry over since they now have proof?


Topic's author
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
The thing that matters is that witnesses have confirmed most of what was in the whistle blower report. 

Not to my knowledge they haven't. They haven't proven a damn thing .
Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
if you want your analogy to apply it should be worded correctly in context,  that the cops show up and they can't tell if there has been domestic violence or not, the wife says there was not, just like Ukraine saying there was no wrong doings with regards to the democrat's charges, so.......

Exactly.
#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
The thing that matters is that witnesses have confirmed most of what was in the whistle blower report. 
Not to my knowledge they haven't. They haven't proven a damn thing .
They have proven trump ordered the money withheld. They have proven that the ukranians were told that in order to get the money and the whitehouse meeting they needed to announce an investigation of Biden. The public announcement of the investigation by the Ukranians had been scheduled. It was only cancelled because the whistle blower report became public. 

What haven't they proven? 
#9
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
They have proven trump ordered the money withheld.
I believe that is true.  However the argument is that the Ukraine government never knew it was held/delayed, right?

They have proven that the ukranians were told that in order to get the money and the whitehouse meeting they needed to announce an investigation of Biden.
please provide a citation for that and not some b.s. like vox  :)

#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I believe that is true.  However the argument is that the Ukraine government never knew it was held/delayed, right?
That is a talking point fox wants people to believe. It is a lie though. Multiple people have confirmed that the Ukrainians knew. Giuliani and Sondland told them. They were just smart enough to not have trump tell them himself. 

They have proven that the ukranians were told that in order to get the money and the whitehouse meeting they needed to announce an investigation of Biden.
please provide a citation for that and not some b.s. like vox  :)
Sondland testified “Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed view email on July 19, days before the Presidential call," he said. "As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to 'run a fully transparent investigation' and 'turn over every stone' were necessary in his call with President Trump."

Sondland told the Ukrainians that they needed to run an investigation before trump had a call with them. On trump's call with them, the Ukrainians raised that they were ready for more weapons and trump told them he needed a "a favor though" before telling them to investigate Biden (by name). The Ukrainians then agreed to announce the investigation and scheduled the interview they were going to announce it in. The only reason trump didn't get what he was extorting them for, was because the whistle blower report came out. He was super close to succeeding in extorting them. 

#11
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
um I'm not sure which one that was,  his "revised" testimony or original however.....
"It was always 'Burisma' to me, and I didn't know about the connection between Burisma and Biden," he said.
3. Sondland said Trump never outlined a quid pro quo

well anyway if everything depends on his testimony it's all over by the crying.

#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
well anyway if everything depends on his testimony it's all over by the crying.
And that is a very sad state of affairs. Sondland confirmed that trump committed multiple crimes. But to trump cultists they simply don't care.

I mean you are sitting there telling me that sondland confirming trump committed crimes is somehow exonerating to trump. I can't tell if it is incredible ignorance, gullibility or delusion.

#13
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
he actually said he "inferred" it which is the same as assumed, no one should be convicted on an assumption like that based on hearsay.  sounds rather nazi-esk to do so.
are you familiar with the Salem witch trials?
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Zelensky is hardly a battered wife lol. What kind of delusion is this?
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There is a Salem Witch museum 20 minutes from my house. 

Interesting what gossip and delusion can do to society.
#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
he actually said he "inferred" it which is the same as assumed, no one should be convicted on an assumption like that based on hearsay.  sounds rather nazi-esk to do so.
are you familiar with the Salem witch trials?
Are you familiar with mob trials? Mob bosses never say the words "I want you to go commit murder." they say things like "take care of him". Everyone understands what this means and then people "take care" of him. That is how trump operates. He strongly suggests that people do something, and they go do it. And when things blow back he tries to pretend like he didn't order them to do it. 

#17
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Zelensky is hardly a battered wife lol. What kind of delusion is this?
The battered wife would be american democracy I suppose. Trump very much wants to use the power of his office to attack his political rivals, just like Putin. He wants to undermine democracy to protect himself. He was extremely close to getting his way too. The only reason he didn't get away with it is because a patriot blew the whistle. The republican party is now trying to get that patriot killed. 
#18
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't see why people have issues with Trump asking about Biden. If they find out that Biden has done very corrupt things(which he has), isn't it in the interest of the American people to know about that corruption? Shouldn't it be a secondary concern that they are political rivals? I
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I actually don't care at all about Ukraine because EU-NATO does not care about Ukraine.

If they actually did care, they would be matching the USA dollar for dollar since it's their next-door neighbor, but the reality is that the EU does not really care about them, much like they don't care about the Kurds. We could learn a lot from the EU about not giving a flip about other nations and taking care of your own people.

Russia has the GDP of Italy with a lousy dated military. They are 10 times less of an existential threat to the USA than they are to the EU. All they have managed to do in the past 3 years is allegedly hack into a DNC server, which has done far less actual damage to the DNC than Pelosi and AOC and Schiff have in the past year.

The only actual threat to democracy has been the impeachment show.
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Stephen
All you need to know is that Facebook confirmed the whistleblower's name by censoring his name.

#21
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
He strongly suggests that people do something, and they go do it.

I 100% agree with your statement, however that is not a crime generally speaking.  Especially if you
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another you been messin' around
Take It on the Run

#22
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't see why people have issues with Trump asking about Biden. If they find out that Biden has done very corrupt things(which he has), isn't it in the interest of the American people to know about that corruption? Shouldn't it be a secondary concern that they are political rivals? I
If that was what Trump actually cared about, there are mechanism to to do that. He could have referred it to the FBI or to congress. That would be the lawful way to investigate such claims. Shaking down a foreign country to get them to announce they are investigating is not the lawful way of getting an investigation. That is how you smear a political opponent. Trump never cared if Biden was corrupt or not. He just cared about spreading doubt that he might be corrupt so he could use that in an election.

Which is, of course, a crime. 
#23
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
All you need to know is that Facebook confirmed the whistleblower's name by censoring his name.
Or it is wildly inappropriate to publish any kind of suggestion of who the whistle blower is so they censored it. 


#24
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't see why people have issues with Trump asking about Biden.
Isn't the problem with this that Biden is the most likely candidate to face to Trump and looks good in swing states? Looking at the data I don't think there is anyone else in the democratic that could beat Trump. 
isn't it in the interest of the American people to know about that corruption?
I would say you are missing a more important question. Is it in Trump's interest to prevent Biden from being a the democratic nominee in order to secure another term? 
Shouldn't it be a secondary concern that they are political rivals?
Nothing is above politics unless both parties agree until one of the parties decide to change things. 
#25
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
He strongly suggests that people do something, and they go do it.

100% agree with your statement, however that is not a crime generally speaking.
The courts and the FBI would strongly disagree. If a mob boss tells someone "it would be great if paullie had an accident" and then paullie gets murdered, the law treats that as ordering a hit. If trump orders aid money to be withheld and then tells ukraine they need to do him a favor when they ask about getting the next batch of weapons, that is also a crime. Trying not to say the crime out loud, directly, does not mean you didn't commit the crime. 
#26
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
could he use the Hillary Clinton defense?  He didn't intend to commit a crime?  I mean if it worked for her it should work for him.
#27
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
could he use the Hillary Clinton defense?  He didn't intend to commit a crime?  I mean if it worked for her it should work for him.
You would have to be clearer on what exactly that means. I'm not aware of Hilary committing any crimes and therefore needing to use that defense. 

But the facts that

1) they refused to tell anyone why the aid was blocked and didn't tell anyone in congress about it at all

2) trump channeled as much as possible through Giuliani, his personal attorney who had no official connection to the government, and not a member of the state department

3) the white house attorney, after receiving complaints about the call, put the transcript in a highly restricted computer (which is not a normal practice) 

These all show aspects of a guilty mind. Not telling anyone what they were doing, funneling the conversation away from official channels and into an unofficial one and hiding the transcript after the fact are all evidence that they knew what they were doing was wrong and didn't want anyone to find out about it. 
#28
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
they refused to tell anyone why the aid was blocked and didn't tell anyone in congress about it at all
it is illegal to delay the aid?  Was there a set delivery date?  How long was it delayed?  Has aid ever been delayed before by a previous administration?  What law does a delay break?

the white house attorney, after receiving complaints about the call, put the transcript in a highly restricted computer (which is not a normal practice) 
if it's not illegal then it's just partisan crying.
aspects of a guilty mind.
um no, what it says is he didn't think he needed or was required to tell anyone these things, thus he never intended to commit a crime, if in fact any of that is actually criminal which I haven't seen any statutes or anything that says it is.


#29
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it is illegal to delay the aid?  Was there a set delivery date?  How long was it delayed?  Has aid ever been delayed before by a previous administration?  What law does a delay break?
i didn't say delaying the aid was illegal all on it's own. The why is extremely important. If you kill someone who was trying to kill you, that's fine. If you kill someone because you want his wallet, that is very wrong. 

But the fact that they didn't tell anyone they were delaying it, and the people who found out weren't told why it was being delayed shows evidence of a guilty mind. They knew that delaying the aid for the reasons they had was wrong, so they didn't tell people they were doing it or why.

if it's not illegal then it's just partisan crying.
Again this is evidence of a guilty mind. If you think that what you are doing is above board and legal, you don't try to hide the transcript of the call. The fact that they did this is evidence that they understood it was illegal. 

um no, what it says is he didn't think he needed or was required to tell anyone these things, thus he never intended to commit a crime
hiding information from people, lying about what you are doing, putting documentation in top secret places to keep people from seeing it is not what innocent people do. If they thought what he was doing was fine they wouldn't have hidden that information. This is evidence of a guilty mind, (mens rea) 
#30
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
But the fact that they didn't tell anyone they were delaying it, and the people who found out weren't told why it was being delayed shows evidence of a guilty mind. They knew that delaying the aid for the reasons they had was wrong, so they didn't tell people they were doing it or why.
show me where they were obligated legally to tell anyone they were delaying it.
so couldn't the devil's advocate say that once they were informed it was wrong they corrected it, thus it wasn't an intentional crime but rather a mistake?
If you think that what you are doing is above board and legal, you don't try to hide the transcript of the call.
the same reason there as hundreds of videos which instruct you to plead the 5th and never talk to police w/o a lawyer, nothing good can come of it, their goal is to arrest or prove guilt, not innocence, given how things are often taken out of context or are down right lies I wouldn't reveal anything I didn't have to, that's just common sense.
it is not what innocent people do.
irrelevant, in the U.S. you are innocent until PROVEN guilty, thinking, inferring, assuming etc is not proof.