blowing up the whistle blower

I used to be a big fan of Law and Order back in its early days when the good guys didn't win every fucking time.  One thing I liked about Perry Mason was when they went through the suspects some were nice guys and some weren't and sometimes it turned out that a nice guy was the culprit.  Law and Order was like that at first but later when they went through the suspects one of them would be nasty to the cops or would be a racist or something and you knew straightaway that that was the guilty party/ 

Anyway Law and Order would open with some picnickers or hikers or office drones having a little scene and then BAM they came across the body, and then there was that clanging noise and then this Rod Serling voice would intone: In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.

And this is approximately what is going on with the house being the cops and the senate being well not the district attorneys, but the jury.  I am unsure of how it proceeds in the senate.  If they are the jury than who prosecutes and who defends?  Impeachment is kind of a strange thing imported from English law and stuck into the constitution.  I read a very good article on the history of it in the New Yorker last week and here it is: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/28/the-invention-and-reinvention-of-impeachment

So the analogy of impeachment to a court of law is not exact, but anyway we are in the prosecution side of it now and when the cops are investigating you you are not allowed to take part in their proceedings, so all this jibber jabber about closed hearings is so much jibber jabber. 


It sounds very high and noble to say a person is innocent until proven guilty, but does that make Epstein innocent, or O J?  We can never be sure of anything in this vale of tears, but a more functional test is would you put money on it?  If you had to bet the swamp on it, on whether Trump withheld aid for Ukraine to try to force them to open an investigation which way would you go?

Of course the next step for the reps is to say oh that's just like using your salad fork on your soup, tacky, but not impeachable, at which point I must ask what sort of monstrous crime would the reps consider impeachable?


How about this whistleblower thing?  Although American citizens elect only the finest of men to run this country occasionally one of them may step into some doo doo, and wouldn't it be nice if somebody who observed that would report it?  And don't we want to encourage that by not getting the whistleblower into trouble?  Seems like a good idea no?

Apparently not to the reps with D Jr tweeting a link to the guy's name, Rand Paul threatening to release it, the prez demanding the press to release it, and last night there was an article on the FOX site that revealed it.

I have tuned into Trump rallies from time to time.  Lately FOX airs each one in its entirety and the screaming mob is not a pretty thing to behold.  If I were the whistleblower the fact that they are all Second Amendment believers would indeed make me regret my actions.  And if I were one who had not yet blown the whistle it would give me second thoughts, and is that not what the Trumpists want to achieve?