How the Whistle-Blower Complaint Almost Didn’t Happen

In light of this eye-opening podcast, what's the deal with this afternoon's headline? -- "Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations" Now Trump and his cronies are all over social media citing this headline alone proves that "Schiff is a fraud" and "The fix is in." It's maddening -- deceptive soundbites and short attention spans are destroying this country and our democracy. Get it together NYT -- great reporting, but let's be more responsible with the headlines and pulled quotes.

How do we know that the Whistleblower was male?

Just a note to say how much I thoroughly enjoy Michael Babaro's interviews, which are so thorough.

I would like to hear more of more of the history and role of the inspector general (IG). The role has its ups and downs. I am glad there was an IG with integrity and guts to move things forward with the whistle blower complaint as he too could have let it go to the wrong hands, the foxes guarding the henhouse

While sunlight is said to be the greatest disinfectant, a whistle-blower's message, not his/her identity, is where the light needs to shine most...

There are a lot of systems in the US hanging on a wing and a prayer. They have been too dependent on having people with good intentions in charge. A lot of legislating needs to take place when this President is history.

Michael Barbaro says, ". . . because it appears that the Department of Justice, which, of course, works for the President . . . " This is an example of the insidious corruption of our established norms and cultural understandings. The Department of Justice does not work for the President, any more than the Federal Elections Commission, the EPA, the Army, the Navy, or any other agency of the Federal Government does. But Mr. Barbaro, possibly without thinking, adopts the notion promulgated by President Trump that the DOJ works for him. No. It works for all of us. Impeachment is necessary because he treats all agencies, particularly the DOJ, as if they were his personal property. Now, perhaps, Mr. Barbaro meant that the DOJ under AG Barr is, in fact, working for and at the behest of President Trump, contrary to its Constitutional mandate. But I don't think his aside makes crystal clear that he meant to say that. Journalists, more than anyone else, should scrupulously avoid adopting false characterizations that the President and those speaking on his behalf publish. Can we all agree that the DOJ is constitutionally required to work for the people of the United States and is not the President's private law firm?

Terrific episode of the Daily, really giving evidence of the cover up. Does anyone else have a problem of the Daily timing out after a few minutes? I then have to start it over, guessing where I got dropped.

Well, after strongly criticizing Michael Barbaro in my comment for Friday's podcast, I find myself surprisingly in agreement with his questioning of the reporting of details about the whistle-blower, at least that he asked the questions. The reporter's response about the need to inform the public about how the whistle-blower process works or can nearly get quashed and perhaps include some information about the whistle-blower is fine. But it is not fine when the whistle-blower's identity is still confidential! The whistle-blower may come forward any day now. Why not wait a few days? It was not urgent to reveal how the process went if that involved revealing information about the whistle-blower. It could have waited. I strongly disagree with Dean Baquet's reasoning given in the accompanying Times piece. The Times does not need to provide a defense for the credibility of the whistle-blower. That is up to Congress at this point in time. I agree with the most recommended Reader Pick commenter for the piece.

Did the Mueller investigation have access to files stored on the 'Secrets' server? What incriminating artifacts might have been stored there?

This is a really worthwhile explainer. It does open our eyes to have Mr. Barnes walk us through this complicated process and, to me, what clearly comes through is twofold. 1. The whistleblower is a bonafide hero. Full stop. And 2. Bill Barr needs to go before Congress and answer for his actions. In the end, Bill Barr must resign. Thank you for your work here. This is rather fascinating.. I had to listen to this a few times over to understand what actually was going on.

OK, ‘the System’, almost didn’t work. What if the system does not work next time? And the time after that? Is that acceptable? Clearly the Justice Department is partisan, it is no longer a reliable arbitrator of Justice. The Attorney General who heads the Department of Justice cannot be trusted to bring ‘Matters of Importance’, or ‘Matters of Malfeasance’ to the Public’s attention (Congress). I do no wish to throw around the term ‘corrupt’ lightly because it’s a serious allegation. But in recent history Spiro Agnew comes to mind, and now William Barr. Both are clearly corrupt. And if the AG is corrupt, what will this do to subordinates who wish to uphold the law fairly? What motivation do they have? Yet this is to be expected. Without a moral compass, the AG will always defer to the President who appoints them. So what to do? Should anyone in the Justice Department be a political appointment? Should the Courts? Any Court? Once ‘justice’ becomes political, people loose faith in its ability to dispense real justice, true justice. I have lost all faith in the Supreme Court. I’m not sure I ever had any faith in the Justice Department and now my lack of faith is confirmed. Democracy relies on justice. Justice should be separate and distinct from each and every Administration. The Justice Department needs to be a separate organization, independent of political influence. I believe it’s the only way democracy will survive, because ‘next time’ is an Administration away.

Dear Michael and crew, Today's episode was very enlightening and on point, except for one significant part. The DOJ and the CIA do not report to the President. Those organizations are part of the Executive Branch, of course, but at the end of the day, they report to the people of the United States of America. This ongoing story already has my blood pressure elevated enough. To help me keep my BP lower, please use your program to help us all remember how all three of the branches of government work in our beloved democracy. Keep up the great work. Carol

This is extremely important reporting demonstrating how in an administration filled with lawlessness, some truth was able to see the light of day. I hope the result is that Trump finally will be brought to account; and not only he but his sycophants and enablers. I fear his followers will not see this as the refreshing breeze it is but as more stink from the “fake news” swamp. Will the damage done by this administration ever be rectified? I am sure Trump is not the cause of this nation’s sickness; but his ascension has surely enabled and reinforced tendencies already there. The immune system of the body politic is mounting a response; but will it be enough?

I completely disagree with the Times decision to out the Whistleblower's identity.

When this is over the whistleblower should get the JFK Profiles in Courage award even if it’s anonymously.

You left out DNI Maguire's testimony that he asked for a ruling on the applicability of the whistleblower statute from the White House Consul. Consul used a strict interpretation of the law's applicability: it is used to report a serious problem, abuse, or violation of the law "relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the director of national intelligence involving classified information." Consul ruled that the President is not under the "responsibility and authority of the DNI" and DNI Maguire said he was required to accept that ruling. You also stated the law needs to be fixed. Well, there's your fix. Make it clear the law does not only apply to national security activities of the intelligence agencies under the authority of the DNI, but national security activities of the entire executive branch, including the President.