November 07, 2019

Right to Confrontation: The Latest Bogus Legal Argument over the ‘Whistleblower’
As a constitutional lawyer, Rand Paul makes a good medical doctor.I used to have occasion to say that in the Patriot Act debates, when the senator was wowing us with his Fourth Amendment theories. With impeachment upon us, he’s now onto the Sixth Amendment -- specifically, the confrontation clause. It guarantees the right of cross-examination: In all criminal trials, the accused must be given the right to confront the accusers. Senator Paul has deduced that this must mean that the identity of the so-called whistleblower has to be revealed, lest President Trump be denied his constitutional rights.Sigh.Mind you, Senator Paul has been making this argument while he himself shrinks from outing the man at issue -- whom we are reliably told is a 33-year-old CIA official, formerly tasked to the White House National Security Council as a Ukraine expert. There is but a small circle of people who fit that description, so Paul, like many in Washington, has known the name, to near certainty, for some time.The senator makes the fair point that there is no legal barrier to the media’s naming the man. We can be confident that if a Democratic president had been accused of impeachable offenses, that would already have happened weeks ago (and, indeed, some right-leaning media sites have published the name).Paul conveniently omits, though, that, as a senator, he has speech or debate-clause immunity. Even if there were legal confidentiality concerns here (there aren’t -- I’ll get to that), he could broadcast the name without any liability. Naturally, he wants someone else to take the heat while he carps from the well-appointed cheap seats.The inanity of the legal disputes surrounding the so-called whistleblower does not begin with Paul. It begins with misunderstandings about the concept of whistleblower itself.As I’ve previously explained, the man in question may be a “whistleblower” in some common-usage sense of the word. Yet, he is not a whistleblower in the statutory sense. That’s the only sense that matters because the relevant statute is what triggers whistleblower protections. Under that statute, protected status is given to an official who reports on intelligence activities within the jurisdiction of the director of national intelligence. The statute does not apply to the president’s conducting of foreign policy, including his communications with foreign heads of state.In this instance, the inspector general of the intelligence community (IGIC) chose to handle the man’s complaint as if it raised an intelligence-related “urgent concern,” as defined by the statute. The IGIC thus treated the man as if he had protected status. That was an error. The acting director of national intelligence correctly found that the complaint did not meet the statutory criteria, and he therefore declined to pass it along to Congress (as the statute mandates for complaints that do meet the criteria). But as he is new and understandably did not want to be perceived as throwing the IGIC under the proverbial bus, the acting DNI publicly conformed to the fiction that the man has protected status under the law. He does not.As if that were not enough confusion, we next come to the brouhaha over anonymity. Contrary to what has become received wisdom (Democratic talking points peddled to the media tend to achieve that status), the law does not guarantee anonymity even to a statutorily qualified whistleblower. Instead, it calls for only the ICIG to keep the identity confidential. Even that, though, is an overstatement. The law says that even the ICIG may disclose the person’s identity if the IGIC (a) believes doing so is unavoidable under the circumstances, or (b) makes disclosure to the Justice Department in anticipation of a prosecution.To be fair to Senator Paul, just-mentioned point (b) shows he was in the right ballpark, although way off the mark. If there is a prosecution in court, the Justice Department has various disclosure obligations that take precedence over a witness’s interest in remaining anonymous. Whistleblowers who are essential witnesses in criminal prosecutions do not get to remain anonymous. Paul’s problem, as we’ll see, is that impeachment is not a prosecution in court.The law imposes this highly qualified confidentiality requirement only on the ICIG. It does not bind other government officials, much less members of Congress, the media, and the public. The point of the law is to shield whistleblowers from reprisals (being fired, demoted, denied promotion, transferred to Anchorage, etc.), not from public identification.The posturing on this point has been patently political. If we were dealing with actual classified information that could compromise a significant national-security program, the media would breathlessly reveal it and lecture us about the public’s “right to know” newsworthy information. And when the whistleblower complaint first emerged, it was impeachment impresario Adam Schiff himself who insisted that the whistleblower had to be brought forward to testify. Natch, he did a 180 when it was revealed that the so-called whistleblower had huddled with Schiff’s staff before filing the complaint with the IGIC. (The point of the statute is to create an intra-agency review of complaints before Congress is notified.)Of course, it has since come out that -- I’ll be darned! -- the “whistleblower” has ties to prominent Democratic Trump detractors. So now, the same Democrats who previously saw the man as a potential star witness have decided that his usefulness has run its course. Now that he is a potential liability, it suddenly has become unpatriotic to utter his name.Meanwhile, Republican Trump defenders first took the position that the “whistleblower” was irrelevant because all his material revelations are hearsay. Since we have a transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call, and witnesses with first-hand knowledge about other pertinent events have testified, they reasoned that he was an unnecessary witness. But, as night follows day, once it became clear that Democrats want to hide him away, the GOP decided that the Republic’s survival hinges on his being exposed and interrogated.Hence, Senator Paul’s Sixth Amendment meanderings.The confrontation clause protects only the accused at a criminal trial. The point is that before one’s liberty is taken away, one must have the opportunity to question one’s accusers. Impeachment, however, is not even a legal proceeding, much less a criminal trial. It is a political proceeding. No one’s liberty is at stake; it is strictly about whether an official should be stripped of political authority -- in the president’s case, of the executive power.Moreover, because the Constitution wholly vests the process of impeachment in the House, and the conduct of impeachment trials in the Senate, those chambers have plenary authority over the respective proceedings. No court has the power to tell the House or Senate what quantum of due process must be afforded to an official in an impeachment case. No one can make Congress apply the Sixth Amendment.Finally, even when the Sixth Amendment does apply (at a criminal trial), the confrontation it guarantees is the ability to cross-examine the witnesses the prosecution calls to establish its case. It does not extend to other people (e.g., tipsters, others who’ve provided hearsay information to investigators). It is very common in the investigative stage for police to receive damning information about a suspect from second- and third-hand sources. That information is investigated, which is how the police and prosecutors locate the first-hand witnesses who are called at the eventual trial. There is no right to confront witnesses the prosecutor does not call, even if they have provided accusatory information.The president is not without arguments for why the so-called whistleblower’s identity should be disclosed, and why this person should be called to testify. I’ll address them in a separate column. But for present purposes: The so-called whistleblower is not a statutory whistleblower, and his anonymity is not protected by law; but the Sixth Amendment has nothing to do with impeachment, and it does not advance a claim that the “whistleblower” should be outed and questioned.
Related Stories
Latest News
Top news around the world
Coronavirus Disease

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus.

Most people infected with the COVID-19 virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment. Older people, and those with underlying medical problems like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, and cancer are more likely to develop serious illness.

Around the World

Celebrity News

> Latest News in Media

Watch It
'Euphoria' Costume Designer on Matching the Characters With Colors Schemes
August 14, 2020
7fVFOoCVVPE
'Nailed It' Host Nicole Byer on Making Emmy History and Her Quarantine Plans
August 13, 2020
1OGtQlJAgaQ
How 'The Mandalorian' Score Found The New 'Star Wars' Sound
August 13, 2020
aQIcZbzr9Wk
Screenwriter Nakia Stephens Finds Hollywood Closed Off Due To Lack of Diversity | Piece Of The Pie
August 15, 2020
l6TNkkSr9FQ
Tekashi 6ix9ine Says He Didn't Disrespect Nipsey Hussle | TMZ
August 14, 2020
1nlQv0c2vbQ
Howard Univ. Prez Says Kamala Harris Inspires Students on Both Sides of Aisle | TMZ
August 14, 2020
hMm65VXzGgY
Indian Matchmaking’s’ Nadia is crushing on this other Netflix star | Page Six Celebrity News
August 12, 2020
7lXTrht4pBY
Rebecca Minkoff shares her favorite clean skincare and makeup products | Page Six Celebrity News
August 12, 2020
kJRcqFs5e7M
Doctors slam critics of Cardi B’s ‘WAP’ song: Don’t shame ‘healthy’ women | Page Six Celebrity News
August 12, 2020
N_bJa1DMT9A
Jennifer Lawrence's 2012 "Hunger Games" Interview: E! News Rewind
August 15, 2020
3kVp_ByaHo4
Meghan Markle Says "It's Good to Be Home" After Royal Exit
August 14, 2020
U-2x3O9eF0E
Shania Twain Rereleasing Hit Album "The Woman In Me" | E! News
August 14, 2020
W4waUOba-rk
TV Schedule
Late Night Show
Watch the latest shows of U.S. top comedians

Sports

Latest sport results, news, videos, interviews and comments
Latest Events
01
Aug
ITALY: Serie A
Juventus - Roma
01
Aug
ITALY: Serie A
AC Milan - Cagliari
01
Aug
ITALY: Serie A
Napoli - Lazio
01
Aug
ITALY: Serie A
Atalanta - Inter Milan
29
Jul
ITALY: Serie A
Torino - Roma
29
Jul
ITALY: Serie A
Cagliari - Juventus
29
Jul
ITALY: Serie A
Sampdoria - AC Milan
28
Jul
ITALY: Serie A
Inter Milan - Napoli
26
Jul
ENGLAND: Premier League
Manchester City - Norwich City
26
Jul
ENGLAND: Premier League
Arsenal - Watford
26
Jul
ENGLAND: Premier League
Leicester City - Manchester United
26
Jul
ITALY: Serie A
Juventus - Sampdoria
26
Jul
ENGLAND: Premier League
Chelsea - Wolves
26
Jul
ENGLAND: Premier League
Newcastle United - Liverpool
26
Jul
ENGLAND: Premier League
Crystal Palace - Tottenham Hotspur
26
Jul
ITALY: Serie A
Roma - Fiorentina
25
Jul
ITALY: Serie A
Napoli - Sassuolo
Find us on Instagram
at @feedimo to stay up to date with the latest.
Featured Video You Might Like
-g9Qziqbif8 0vmRhiLHE2U JFCZUoa6MYE UfN5PCF5EUo 2PV55f3-UAg W3y9zuI_F64 -7qCxIccihU pQ9gcOoH9R8 g5MRDEXRk4k tudKp5Vhs3k iwWHibhssSo kQr0XHPbICM
Copyright © 2020 Feedimo. All Rights Reserved.