It’s funny that before THIS whistleblower, many who are now criticizing my stance chose not to defend perhaps the greatest whistleblower of all time –Snowden. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said of Snowden, “If Mr. Snowden had the courage of his convictions, he would come back to the country, stand trial, and tell the American people and a jury why he thought what he did was justified.”
It seems Schumer’s defense of whistleblowers depends upon the subject whistled.
I believe it is very simple: the Sixth Amendment guarantee of confronting your accuser supersedes all statutes. Any whistleblower who alleges a crime ultimately will have to face their accused in court. Even the New York Times acknowledges this fact.
With regard to withholding aid, I think all foreign aid is unconstitutional, but even given today’s parameters for aid, the law requires that any country that receives it must be free of corruption.
One thing for certain, though, is that both sides have tried to condition aid on investigations. President Obama never gave Ukraine the lethal aid that Congress appropriated. Biden bragged that he threatened to withhold a billion dollars in aid if Ukraine didn’t fire the prosecutor. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) just last year threatened Ukraine’s aid if they didn’t keep investigating Trump. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) in September threatened Ukraine’s aid if they dared to investigate Hunter Biden. Hillary Clinton hired a foreign spy, Christopher Steele, to investigate and produce the Steele dossier.
I think fairness dictates that they all be judged with the same standard. Fairness requires public testimony and cross-examination of the whistleblower.
But fairness isn’t in the equation right now for partisan Democrats.
Connect With Us