Law and Disorder: Criminal Distraction

Public hearings in the Trump impeachment have now started, something sure to keep me the edge of my seat for the next couple of weeks. 

In the lead up to all this, one thing I’ve found especially exasperating is how Donald Trump and his followers obsess so much on the whistleblower, as if the whole case against impeachment hinges on whether an investigation sparked by  complaint from an anonymous source is legitimate. Unsurprisingly, this argument makes no sense. Here’s an analogy of the way I look at it.

Let’s say Jim lives down the street from a 7-Eleven. His son Billy runs in to say the neighborhood bully Jack just cold-cocked Mrs. Bailey, a local retiree, from behind in the 7-Eleven parking lot. Jim didn’t see it, but he trusts his son. He's sure it happened. Jim, here, is the whistleblower. 

Jim assumes the police have leads and will immediately arrest Jack, but when that doesn’t happen Jim decides to inform the authorities himself. It's true he biased against Jack, but he's also biased in favor of Mrs. Bailey, a nice old lady. He's also biased against assaulting old ladies. He calls an anonymous tip line because he doesn’t want to give his name. He’s had trouble with Jack’s family before and wants to avoid retribution. Who could blame him?

The police start checking up on Jack, find some people who hang around with him. Some of them saw the whole thing, and one or two are willing to confirm the attacker was indeed Jack. They also like Mrs. Bailey and agree Jack crossed a line in hitting her. The witnesses, in this case, are Alexander Vindman, Gordon Sondland, Jennifer Williams, etc.

Jack is arrested and prosecuted. At this point, the DA doesn’t care who left the anonymous tip. He has eye-witnesses now and other evidence uncovered by detectives. The DA is the House of Representatives. The detectives are the three committees investigating Trump’s dealings with the president of Ukraine. The whole House is the Grand Jury that will hear the evidence and decide if there’s enough to indict Jack, I mean Trump.

To stretch the analogy out further, half of the jury (the Senate) hearing the case against Jack (Trump) happens to be opioid addicts and loyal customers of Jack's backstreet  painkiller retail business. Despite the undisputed evidence, they refuse to find him guilty. Judge G. O. Patterson declares a mistrial, and Jack goes free.

He is still tainted with an arrest record, but no conviction. In the end, he’s an unrepentant scoundrel, but one who’s admired by enough of the townspeople of Dipshitville that they even elect him mayor. To celebrate, Trump (I mean, Jack) goes out on Fifth Avenue and shoots someone. And no one cares. Jack is special. 

P.S. Someone in the DA's office illegally reveals Jim's name to the local paper as being the anonymous tipster, and naturally Jack gives him a horrible beat down. So much for anonymity. So much for justice.