It seems like Republicans are persisting:

"Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat on the House Oversight committee, spoke to reporters about her perception of Republicans in today's hearing with the National Security Council's top Ukraine expert Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

“What the Republicans are trying to do in there, very clearly in their questioning, is try to front-door or backdoor Lt. Col. Vindman into revealing who the whistleblower is, even though in his testimony, he said he didn’t know," she said.

Wasserman Schultz said that "they have been unsuccessful.” "

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-29-2019/index.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To deter other whistleblowers. It is simple. It is how the Mafia works.

Right. But how can they live with themselves?

Because they don't have a conscience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To deter other whistleblowers. It is simple. It is how the Mafia works.

Right. But how can they live with themselves?

They are trying to avoid jail.

Anonymous wrote:To deter other whistleblowers. It is simple. It is how the Mafia works.

Right. But how can they live with themselves?

To deter other whistleblowers. It is simple. It is how the Mafia works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whistleblower is entitled to protection from retaliation. He is not entitled to anonymity.

If the House votes to impeach, you can bet the whistleblower will be subpoenaed by the Senate.

Why? Genuine question.

They have first hand witnesses to all the whistleblowers claims. What value would they provide from am evidentiary perspective?

Retaliation.

Anonymous wrote:The whistleblower is entitled to protection from retaliation. He is not entitled to anonymity.

If the House votes to impeach, you can bet the whistleblower will be subpoenaed by the Senate.

Why? Genuine question.

They have first hand witnesses to all the whistleblowers claims. What value would they provide from am evidentiary perspective?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whistleblower protection was created so that you don’t have Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden moments. Now if something is wrong it will be leaked to the press vs going through official channels. I can’t believe how short sighted some people are

Trump and his minions DGAF about our institutions, or the future. That could not be more clear. They are burning everything down for quick profit for themselves, everything else be dmned.

+1 Although I think they think they’ll be sitting at the right hand of the devil when this is all over.

Anonymous wrote:How do you know the name is being leaked? I haven't seen it anywhere.

Read. the. OP.

How do you know the name is being leaked? I haven't seen it anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:Whistleblower protection was created so that you don’t have Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden moments. Now if something is wrong it will be leaked to the press vs going through official channels. I can’t believe how short sighted some people are

Trump and his minions DGAF about our institutions, or the future. That could not be more clear. They are burning everything down for quick profit for themselves, everything else be dmned.

Whistleblower protection was created so that you don’t have Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden moments. Now if something is wrong it will be leaked to the press vs going through official channels. I can’t believe how short sighted some people are

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea if it's legal, but it sure ISN'T RIGHT.

Who can honestly say they encourage this type of behavior? Even if the whistleblower was a conniving liar, he or she would still be entitled to protection under the law, since they have filed a whistleblowing report and it has been accepted as credible. You could only judge the whistleblower upon the outcome of the investigation.

No, it's not legal.

I have no idea if it's legal, but it sure ISN'T RIGHT.

Who can honestly say they encourage this type of behavior? Even if the whistleblower was a conniving liar, he or she would still be entitled to protection under the law, since they have filed a whistleblowing report and it has been accepted as credible. You could only judge the whistleblower upon the outcome of the investigation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whistleblower is entitled to protection from retaliation. He is not entitled to anonymity.

If the House votes to impeach, you can bet the whistleblower will be subpoenaed by the Senate.

Are you insane? The climate now with all the crazy MAGA people, that persons life is in danger. Not to mention their family. Someone should out YOU posting anonymously, see how your family, friends and coworkers react.

+1 and once Trump knows who he is there’s no possible way he won’t instruct his administration to retaliate.

he is a slimeball and nunes's aide is going to have a lot of explaining to do. Also any R's who dropped the name on the record. I hope they all get kicked out on their fat asses.