Updated: 2 days ago
As some of you may have heard, there is an anonymous whistle blower who has given the deep deep goods on The Don and could lead to his downfall. In my mind, this would be all well and good if two criteria were met. First, that the whistle blower could be interviewed openly so we could hear their testimony and have it corroborated or not. Second, that we know there actually is a whistle blower. Regardless of your thoughts about he voracity of the claims put forth, I think we can all agree that having something like this in the open is better- not worse- given the stakes involved. I mean, we all saw what happened to Epstien, but that isn't grounds to hide who this alleged whistle blower is given that one half of congress is trying to remove the President of the United States from office. We, as the people who our government is supposed to work for, should be made aware of all the nascent facts of the case against our current President, and who is accusing him of such crimes.
Yet, even speaking the alleged name is verboten on such sites as YouTube and Facebook. In fact, YouTube is using AI algorithms to scrub any videos that even mention the alleged name, causing such people as Matt Christensen and Tim Pool to have their content not only flagged but shut off or put into private mode without their knowledge as to why. I can't figure why this would be the case, but I do know that this alleged individual has released a book (authored anonymously) about his experiences in the Trump White House, and will likely make some money off of the deal.
As an American who has fought to protect this nation's freedoms, I have to ask the question, "what the fuck, over?" I understand that The Don is a very powerful person, and as such, could theoretically have this whistle blower silenced, but that's besides the point. We expect witness testimony- open witness testimony- to put violent drug dealers away- why wouldn't we expect the same when trying to ascertain if the President should be removed from office? I mean, " Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." If we give violent criminals this courtesy, why isn't it being extended to the leader of our nation?
The only reason I can think is that this is partisan, and as Tim Pool theorizes, is nothing more than a distraction from the very weak Democratic field of contenders to face The Don in 2020 meant to sour the people toward the president to influence the election. If their case was so air tight, then they should get their star witness- the whistle blower- out in the open to take on a corrupt president. And if The Don is corrupt- I expect them to do just that. But if this is a partisan hit job meant to coerce the people into electing otherwise un-electable political windsocks, then we have to wonder if we can trust anyone in that party at all, especially given the nature of their relations with the president over the last three years.
This whole thing concerns me because we can't validate the claims made by the accuser regarding the accused. In my mind, this means that their case is weak, and the President is innocent, because they can't prove guilt. It means that this whole endeavor is just one party trying to realize their wet dream of removing the person they didn't want in the hopes of attaining power to enact their desires for this nation. If that is the case, it's dirty, corrupt, and against the nature of our Republic. Some call it progressive. Others might call it insurrection. Whatever it is- it's wrong.
The whistle blower needs to grow a spine, reach down and grab a pair, and come forward openly so we can deduce the voracity of their claims. And Facebook and YouTube and the media at large need to let the people know who this person may be. If this had happened under Obama, we can pretty much rest assured that the name of the whistle blower would have been front page news across all the outlets as they sought to ascertain the legitimacy of their claims. But here and now, we hear nothing but crickets from the media regarding their name, and see those who would speculate or comment about said individual getting shut off on the largest and most prolific social sites on the internet. I'd expect this kind of thing in communist China, but not here.
The whistle blower needs to come forward openly. If they're not willing to do that, then their testimony is, as far as anyone can discern, fake news.