Mollie Hemingway reminds Justin Amash about the time he said, ‘let’s hear from the whistleblower‘
DOINK!
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.
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, 2019I'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, 2019You 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, 2019LOL. 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, 2019The 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, 2019The 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
Click here to view original web page at twitchy.com
Mollie is right, Amash is wrong. His distortion or willful misunderstanding of the Constitution has been very evident in the past few years. Whistleblowers are afforded limited, not blanket, anonymity protection in cases like this. The fact they aren’t a whistleblower at all hurts the case for anonymity further, though there’s a legal dispute on this point.
The President will get to face their accuser at some point anyway.