FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Jim Jordan and the Whistleblower

After listening to Jim Jordan’s reasoned analysis of the impeachment process at the conclusion of the first day of the impeachment hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, a number of readers have written asking me to explain why, at this stage of the proceedings. it is so important for people like Jim Jordan to be able to talk to the whistleblower to discover what happened?  To help readers understand the process, a simple made-up example may provide an answer.

A is the only witness to a terrible car accident that, unknown to A, was being driven by B who, it turns out is drunk.  The car being driven by B was heading the wrong way on a four-lane highway at the time it crashed into another car.  A promptly called the police to report the accident. Thereafter, he left the scene and  went home.  The next day A went to Europe on a 6-month trip.

As a result of A’s call to the police, several things happened.  The police showed up at the site of the accident. Since B’s car was headed the wrong way on a four-lane highway when it crashed into the other car, the police could easily figure out who was to blame for the accident.  B was given a blood alcohol test that showed his blood alcohol level to be at such a high level that he was charged with, among other things, drunk driving.  As a result of their investigation, the police issued B several tickets.

B was convinced he was innocent of all the charges, and hired a lawyer named Jim Jordan to represent him.  Jim had a master’s degree in education from Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, and obtained his JD degree from Capital University Law School in 2001.  Jim was happy to take the case because not only would he earn a good fee, but he knew he could, as they say in the trade, “beat the rap. ”

The first thing he did after he was hired was to go to the police department to find out who it was that first reported the crash, a person known in common parlance as the “whistleblower.”  Jim had visited the scene of the accident and concluded that if A had been standing in one specific spot near the highway, he could not possibly have seen the accident and his call to the police department would be discredited.

Accordingly, he caused a subpoena to be issued to A commanding him to appear at the trial.  Jim wanted to be able to cross examine A because he hoped that he might be able cast doubt on A’s credibility and, as a result, cast doubt in the minds of the jurors as to whether or not B was guilty. Jim’s tactic depended, of course, on the jurors overlooking the fact that B had been convicted of drunk driving, and his car was driving the wrong way on a four-lane highway. To impeach A,  Jim would have to get A to come home from Europe which, of course, A refused to do.

When arguing to the court that his client’s trial could not begin without A’s presence, Jim made a number of creative arguments in support of his position.  He said:  “We will never get the chance to see the whistleblower raise his right hand, swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and -we’ll never get that chance.  This Anonymous so-called whistleblower with no first-hand knowledge (who is the reason we’re all sitting here today)-we’ll never get a chance to question that individual.” Of course Jim was counting on the fact that if A was present, he could prove that from where A was standing, A could not possibly have seen the accident and therefore would lack first-hand knowledge.   Jim went on saying: “We’ll never get a chance to question that individual.  We’ll not get to check out his credibility, his motivations, his bias.”

Jim’s argument to the court as to why the proceedings should be put on hold until A could be compelled to testify were excellently presented by Jim.  Nonetheless, the judge pointed out to Jim one thing he had apparently overlooked.  B’s client was in the wrong lane, heading the wrong way and was drunk.  The trial was permitted to continue without A and B was convicted on all counts and sentenced to a long prison term.

In 2007 Jim Jordan ran for Congress and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio’s 4th district where he continues to serve today. On November  8, 2019, Jim was appointed to the House Intelligence Committee that is conducting the public impeachment hearings, by Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the Committee.  Nunes knew that Jim would be able to convince the country that without the whistle blower’s presence, the hearings being conducted were nothing more than a very bad joke. B is watching the hearings from his prison cell, scratching his head.  B is not the only head scratching citizen watching the hearings.

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
December 06, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Eat an Impeachment
Matthew Hoh
Authorizations for Madness; The Effects and Consequences of Congress’ Endless Permissions for War
Jefferson Morley
Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn’t a ‘Managed Massacre’
Andrew Levine
Whatever Happened to the Obama Coalition?
Paul Street
The Dismal Dollar Dems and the Subversion of Democracy
Dave Lindorff
Conviction and Removal Aren’t the Issue; It’s Impeachment of Trump That is Essential
Ron Jacobs
Law Seminar in the Hearing Room: Impeachment Day Six
Linda Pentz Gunter
Why Do We Punish the Peacemakers?
Louis Proyect
Michael Bloomberg and Me
Robert Hunziker
Permafrost Hits a Grim Threshold
Joseph Natoli
What We Must Do
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Global Poison Spring
Robert Fantina
Is Kashmir India’s Palestine?
Charles McKelvey
A Theory of Truth From the South
Walden Bello
How the Battle of Seattle Made the Truth About Globalization True
Evan Jones
BNP Before a French Court
Norman Solomon
Kerry’s Endorsement of Biden Fits: Two Deceptive Supporters of the Iraq War
Torsten Bewernitz – Gabriel Kuhn
Syndicalism for the Twenty-First Century: From Unionism to Class-Struggle Militancy
Matthew Stevenson
Across the Balkans: From Banja Luka to Sarajevo
Thomas Knapp
NATO is a Brain Dead, Obsolete, Rabid Dog. Euthanize It.
Forrest Hylton
Bolivia’s Coup Government: a Far-Right Horror Show
M. G. Piety
A Lesson From the Danes on Immigration
Ellen Isaacs
The Audacity of Hypocrisy
Monika Zgustova
Chernobyl, Lies and Messianism in Russia
Manuel García, Jr.
From Caesar’s Last Breath to Ours
Binoy Kampmark
Going to the ICJ: Myanmar, Genocide and Aung San Suu Kyi’s Gamble
Jill Richardson
Marijuana and the Myth of the “Gateway Drug”
Muzamil Bhat
Srinagar’s Shikaras: Still Waters Run Deep Losses
Gaither Stewart
War and Betrayal: Change and Transformation
Farzana Versey
What Religion is Your Nationalism?
Clark T. Scott
The Focus on Trump Reveals the Democrat Model
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Do Bernie’s Supporters Know What “Not Me, Us” Means? Does Bernie?
Peter Harley
Aldo Leopold, Revisited
Winslow Myers
A Presidential Speech the World Needs to Hear
Christopher Brauchli
The Chosen One
Jim Britell
Misconceptions About Lobbying Representatives and Agencies
Ted Rall
Trump Gets Away with Stuff Because He Does
Mel Gurtov
Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and the Insecurity of China’s Leadership
Nicky Reid
Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard and the Slow Death of the Democratic Delusion
Tom H. Hastings
Cross-Generational Power to Change
John Kendall Hawkins
1619: The Mighty Whitey Arrives
Julian Rose
Why I Don’t Have a Mobile Phone
David Yearsley
Parasitic Sounds
Elliot Sperber
Class War is Chemical War
December 05, 2019
Colin Todhunter
Don’t Look, Don’t See: Time for Honest Media Reporting on Impacts of Pesticides
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail