Rand Paul is doing the wrong thing by having the Supreme Court Justice out the name of the whistleblower and here is why.

The IG is under active investigation per Devin Nunes https://saraacarter.com/devin-nunes-republicans-have-an-active-investigation-into-ig-michaelatkinson/

Either the IG violated the law and released the name of the whistleblower or the whistleblower violated the law and leaked classified info.

The Doj is investigating the situation according to Acting DNI Mcguire on Sept 26 2019 at the 31 minute mark. https://www.c-span.org/video/?464509-1/acting-director-national-intelligence-maguire-testifies-whistleblower-complaint

At the time of the DNI's testimony, it was not known that the whistleblower met with Schiff's staff. ( that knowledge happened aprox 1 week later )

The deposition the R's want released by the IG took place after this point and most likely contains the whistleblower's name,

Because the investigation is not complete and wrong doing by one or the other is not known, releasing the whistleblower's name in the impeachment proceedings at this time predetermine's the whistleblower's guilt.

Having a Supreme Court Justice be the mouth piece to predetermine his guilt violates the whistleblower's due process rights beyond repair. He would not be able to be prosecuted if thought guilty.

It would be one thing for Rand Paul to say his name on the Senate floor in some other proceeding. But to use a Justice in this proceeding to do it obfuscates all legal procedures that would need to come before a Justice made a determination of whether he was a legit whistleblower or a leaker.

If you listen to the testimony of the Acting DNI you can hear several reasons why there is a question about the legal status of his protection.

The whistleblower worked in the intel community and whistleblowing in meant for that community and those doing wrong within the community. It is NOT for Executive branch complaints.

We later found out he met with Schiff's staff and never disclosed that info on his complaint. It could be argued that he voided his whistleblower protection for the omission. ( lie )

>>7964256

start by naming what assumption I made rather than just making a stupid statement.

Facts:

investigations underway by DOJ and House R's

Timeline is well stated of chain of events

Justices cannot comment on a case that might come before them is well established precedent

The whistleblower protection act prohibits the IG from releasing the name

The protection act requires truthful statements reported to the IG

>>7964323

that is not correct. Not only does a person not have to admit guilt, they don't even have to be personally named. After the Civil war, Lincoln and Johnson both gave blanket pardons to many people based on actions taken.

Throughout history, many people have been pardoned after evidence shows they were not guity

>>7964352

suace for any easy google search about pardoning someone not guilty https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-pardon/after-dna-test-california-man-freed-from-prison-in-1978-double-murder-idUSKBN1DN1XK

sauce for blanket pardons based on acts taken during civil war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardons_for_ex-Confederates

although you are wrong about pardons, you raised a subject that should be kept fresh in our minds. Blanket pardons and secret pardons are legal and used by Presidents.

>>7964425 The IG is the one who released his name as the whistleblower. Directly or indirectly when he had to come back in and testify about the new info that he met with schiff's staff. His testimony revealed his identity to other lawmakers. This is where and why I say IG or whistleblower did wrong. But you are correct that it is possible they both did something wrong.

The reason i say it predetermines his guilt is because the IG was not supposed to reveal it.

A judge will need to rule on whether he is a legit whistleblower or leaker at some point. If he is legit, the IG should never have revealed his identity. Justice Roberts revealing it says that wrong of revealing it was not wrong so I can carry info I shouldn't know forward. If revealing it was not wrong, he was not a legit whistleblower and instead leaked classified info

anons, avoid being dragged into the weeds.

The root of all of these legal problems creeping up is the Impeachment is Unconstitutional, not founded in law, and a coup attempt. It is expected that other wrongful legal problems will spurt out of the proceedings. If witnesses are called we will have all kinds of breaches.

Think of Impeachment as the foundation of a house.

If the foundation were not there, could the dems be constructing floors, walls, and roof?

NO. The Impeachment should not be there yet things are proceeding.

If the proceedings were not happening, Barr would be completing his investigation of the whistleblower complaint and we would not know about it or be debating whether he should be outed or testify. If Barr finds the complaint was not well taken, he would decide whether to prosecute the whistleblower for leaking classified info.

The Impeachment will always be the foundational problem here and cannot be made alright after the fact. It should not have even happened in the first place. Anything stemming from it is as a result of THAT foundational problem.

When these issues arise, try to go back to the root of the problem rather than go with the flow of the current debate.

>>7964854

looks like Teletubbies to me