Rand Paul should be charged for outing the whistle blower publicly

Can't... rand paul is protected:

 

I undertstand that but why with this?

And why continue to keep it going?

Just seems that nobody really cares at this minute, I could see if it was a big name.

 

I don't think thats right.

I think that says he can't be arrested while physically there.

And this isn't arrest, this is sueing for money.

 

I think it says any speech or debate is considered "privileged" and thus immune from indictment. I am not a lawyer nor constitutional scholar. But Renato Mariota is (former U.S. prosecutor)...

 

"Now, during the proceedings, I asked a question that was disallowed, and I'm going to ask that question again this morning, because the Constitution does protect debate and does protect the asking of questions," the libertarian-leaning senator said. "I think they made a big mistake not allowing my question. My question did not talk about anybody who is a whistleblower. My question did not accuse anybody of being a whistleblower."
Paul claimed he "simply named two people's names," then proceeded to repeat his question, reading the names of two individuals.
"And you say, well we should protect the whistleblower, and the whistleblower deserves anonymity. The law does not preserve anonymity," Paul said. "His boss is not supposed to say anything about him, he's not supposed to be fired. I'm for that."
Paul said that his reason for naming names was out of concern over a possible plot to take down the president.
"My point is, is by having such protection, such overzealous protection, we don't get to the root of the matter of how this started," he said, "'cause this could happen again."

 

That seems very Chinese of him. Asange, Snowden, and this person all deserve prison. This country can do no wrong. Wiretap everyone. Drop bombs on civilians the world over.

Thanks, I think I understand it now.

 

So what about when they need a whistleblower?

And the name has been out for awhile.

 

So what was the actual question?

 

Whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.

 

So why did he need to name him?

And who was supposed to answer this question?

 

I think its not too big of a stretch to think that trumplicans will think Democrats won't do things requiring them to have whistleblowers... and heck, if they do, they will simply change their positions on whistleblowers. Since trumplicans aren't weighed down by integrity.

And it doesn't matter if the name has been out there or not. Many names have been out there. But to have it emblazoned on a poster next to a United States senator while addressing the senate... sure to be photographed, sure to be televised?

 

I am not absolving him of anything but it just seems weird to be using the name as a tactic when he really has nothing to do with this anymore.

Just seems like old news.

 

I don't think it's there, again, that focuses on preventing retaliation against an employee

again, DD's claim is "they should charge Rand Paul for his lawless behavior." I don't see what they should "charge" Rand Paul with and where the basis in law would be for such a charge.

 

And it seemed that most if not all of what the WB provided was substantiated by other witnesses and evidence. That said... while it seems moot for this instance, the long-term impact, much like other parts of this, will be long-lasting and very harmful to our country.

 

Walter Shaub is an American attorney specializing in government ethics who, from January 9, 2013 to July 19, 2017, was the director of the United States Office of Government Ethics.

 

Uh ok.

I guess?

 

so, for example, in the discussion of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 found at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RS21636.pdf, there only seems to be penalties prescribed for individuals who knowingly reveal the identities of "covert agents"-- and I have not seen anywhere anyone argue that the alleged/putative/suspected whistleblower falls into the category of "covert agent":

Prohibitions

The criminal provisions of the act are contained in 50 U.S.C. §421, which defines three offenses according to the offender’s means of acquiring the information at issue:

§ 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources.

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identify of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
​

Each of these offenses is a felony. The applicable maximum fine is $250,000, unless any pecuniary gain or loss resulted from the offense, in which case the fine may be set at twice the amount of loss or gain.10 A sentence under Section 421 is to be served consecutively with respect to any other prison sentence.11

The offenses set forth in 50 U.S.C. Section 421 (a), (b), and (c) share some elements in common: (1) intentional disclosure12 of the identity of a covert agent13 (2) to someone not authorized to receive classified information, (3) knowing that the information disclosed identifies that agent, and (4) knowing further that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal the agent’s intelligence relationship with the United States.
​

So my question is, is there another place that would make Rand Paul's disclosure of the whistleblower's name (or anyone else's disclosure of that name) a criminal offense?

 

He, Graham, Cruz.....they have all been castrated and Trump keeps their nuts in jars of formaldehyde on his nightstand.

 

https://www.realclearinvestigations...ing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html

This article outlines some of the allegations surrounding the alleged WB. If this guy is not the WB, then Paul would have a legitimate right to ask the questions. The guy in this article has a trail of coordination with the DNC, Ukraine, Biden and Schiff's staff. This guy also was demoted or moved out of the white house because he was accused of leaking things to the media. I believe the call with Mexico may be one of the leaks they believe he is responsible for: https://www.axios.com/trumps-calls-...633-9d2578a3-0ee4-481b-ab94-920d92d142d1.html

I imagine this is what Paul is trying to get out.

 

Fealty. He’s bending the knee extra deep and the king sees it.