Trump’s New Demand for Whistleblower Identity

Almost a month has gone by, and no one to this day knows who the whistleblower is.  It has been like a silent attack from an imaginary person who may or may not exist.  The evidence is leaning toward this person is not even real.  After all, are not the Democrats nothing but liars?  Have words not been put on paper and in the president’s mouth along with other GOP members who stand up for President Trump?  The Democrats are delusional, and their time is running out on coming up with substantial evidence.  There have been “rapid-fire witnesses” who came forward with a jab and run stance, but the whistleblower is nowhere to be seen in the picture.

Wednesday morning, President Trump tweeted, “Where’s the Whistleblower?”  As the one being accused, he has every right to know who his accuser is.  But does he get that answer?  Does the rest of the nation get that answer?  No, we don’t.  All we get are excuses.  Everything is behind closed doors and done in secret.

Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” last week, “They want to make sure to identify other evidence pertinent to the investigation and that, it may not be necessary to take steps that might reveal the whistleblower’s identity to do that.”

A letter was sent to Schiff, Representative Devin Nunes, Representative Jim Jordan, and Representative Michael McCaul.  The letter from the ranking members of the oversite intelligence and foreign affairs committees stated at the shock and surprise they will not put the whistleblower on the stand.  It read, “You had earlier committed that the employee would provide ‘unfiltered’ testimony ‘very soon,’ only to reverse course following revelations that the employee had a bias against President Donald Trump and that you had received a secret, early account of the allegations.”  It continued, “As the so-called impeachment inquiry gathers information that contradicts the employee’s allegations, we ask that you arrange for the Committees to receive public testimony from the employee and all individuals he or she relied upon in formulating the complaint.” A decline to comment came from Schiff’s aide when ABC News contacted his office.  WOW!!

Perhaps, in this situation, the media did a good thing.  They brought this letter to light, but what does that prove to the American people?  It says to us who are beyond frustrated with this circus act, this person may have been made up along with all the accusations.  We are almost through President Trump’s first term, and the Democrats have come up with nothing, absolutely nothing to prove their accusations!

House Democrats have stated they are working to hide the identity of the whistleblower to protect any information from being disclosed.  The Democrats are concerned the GOP will leak the name, number, and rank of the official who would take part in any of the hearings.  This is nothing but excuses, excuses.

Senator Richard Burr, who is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated Tuesday, the so-called whistleblower’s attorneys are not complying with his team’s inquiries.  He said, “This is a very serious charge the whistleblower has made.  I cannot envision a scenario where we would not want to have legal counsel staff talk with the whistleblower in person.”

Burr stated, “The Senate committee had specifically asked the individual for an interview.  The lawyers haven’t even offered to make them available.  They haven’t been specific as to their reason.”  Burr later said, “I didn’t know how to put into context the whistleblower’s claim.  I’ve read the transcript. Is that a high crimes and misdemeanors, the conversation that went on?  I don’t see it.  That’s my judgment.”

Those who see the truth of the transcript know there is nothing wrong with the conversation.  More lies came from of the so-called whistleblower’s attorney Mark Zaid when he told ABC News, “We have been in repeated contact with both the Majority and Minority of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and have been clear that what happens with one would happen with both in a non-partisan manner.”  Zaid added, “Given the obvious security concerns associated with the whistleblower’s identity, addressing the process that has occurred, which is always important, is candidly not time-sensitive and can certainly be dealt with at a later date or through alternative means that enable the Committee to learn what is needed to accomplish its oversight authority.”

Here is a question, how about we deal with it NOW?