The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway called out Rep. Justin Amash for once saying, “Let’s hear from the whistleblower so we can clear the president or hold him accountable” but now accusing President Trump and his supporters of trying to “protect government corruption” over calls for his or her identity to be unmasked.
THREAD ==>
Libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and classical liberals believe in protecting whistleblowers to expose government corruption. Trump Republicans believe in exposing whistleblowers to protect government corruption.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) November 5, 2019
AKSHUALLY the Constitution specifically provides for the right of the accused to meet his accuser. Whistleblower protection has never — could never — mean that accusations are accepted without question. He of course must testify. To say otherwise is silly.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) November 5, 2019
I'm so old, I remember when you also wanted to "hear from the whistleblower" and this didn't mean you were violating the Constitution. (I am six weeks old.) https://t.co/D5mPH77dZm
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) November 5, 2019
You see, by “Let’s hear from the whistleblower” he didn’t really mean “hear” — he meant “read what he or she said”:
Yeah, hear from the whistleblower through the complaint, which the White House had not released at the time.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) November 5, 2019
We also remember when Rep. Adam Schiff changed his tune from wanting to hear testimony to nope:
LOL. You said Congress needed to “hear from the whistleblower.” Your words. You for some reason changed your tune after it was revealed he secretly met with Team Schiff and then lied about it to the ICIG.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) November 5, 2019
Recommended
The tweet was specifically about needing access to the whistleblower complaint. You can spin the phrase “hear from the whistleblower” however you’d like. Spinning for Trump is basically all you have at this point.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) November 5, 2019
The move to ad hominem is unnecessary. In any case, congressmen should know the difference between whistleblower protection and anonymity. And people who claim libertarianism and Constitutionalism should know more of the rights of the accused.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) November 5, 2019
Oh, and the president will get to confront the whistleblower directly at trial so why not just do it now?
Whistleblowers are protected through anonymity. There may be a later stage where due process for the accused means confronting the whistleblower directly. That would be at trial (though it specifically applies to criminal prosecution). That’s how our constitutional system works.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) November 5, 2019
***