If a complaint was logged with an Ombudsman about conduct of a Government/Public official and the investigation found there were indeed were possible criminal acts committed then the ombudsman should be able to report to a investigative bodies/and law enforcement. If you cannot do that then what is the point of an ombudsman if the inestigation gets gagged.You’re deeply out of your depth, it appears, on the subject of privileged communication. There are many contexts in which this happens- there are privileged enjoyed by medical practitioners, by lawyers, by journalists... What you are essentially saying is that a victim of some sort of official malfeasance or of crime should not have access to helpful resources unless they are willing to have that resource immediately turn around and repeat to police what the victim discloses. That’s utterly out to lunch. Victims are almost never legally obligated to cooperate with an investigation or to report something in the first place. If they don’t want a matter to proceed through criminal or other investigation because of the additional harm to them, that’s generally respected.
Besides that, you’ve introduced the word ‘criminal’ to this when, as of yet, it’s not at all clear nor strongly implied that crime was committed. There can be tremendous abuses of authority that fall short of criminal culpability.
If a victim of something goes forward to an omnudsperson looking for help, the onbudsperson should, in nearly every case, respect that request for confidentiality, subject to the usual exceptions such as harm to children or threatened harm to oneself or to third parties. That is not ‘literally Fascism!’, no matter how twisted your knickers may be over it.
You completely missed the point all I said that Oaths shouldn't bar reporting of crimes to bodies that enforce the law and a politician should not have the right to gag such findings. That would breed corruption.
I am not saying Vance committed a crime because Innocent until proven guilty.