There’s an ongoing debate about the “identity” of the so-called whistleblower in Washington, D.C.
Never mind that we all know who it is by now, as the man’s name has been published and referenced by a number of outlets.
He is instead a deep-state stooge who hates Trump and is working or has worked with former Vice President Joe Biden in the past, it seems clear from the information available.
Sen. Paul made the perfect argument for why the man’s name should go public, despite the fact that liberals seem to think he is under some lawful “anonymity.”
You can watch the video below:
Question: "The whistleblower laws protect the whistleblower. You know it's illegal to out a whistleblower?"
— The Hill (@thehill) November 5, 2019
News for the Informed American Patriot
Sign up for our twice-daily emails and stay up-to-date on the most important news and commentary!
I’m sorry, but in my opinion the fake “whistleblower” is not a member of the Witness Protection Program.
Again, he’s a partisan hack — using a phony “label” to try to hide in the shadows while firing rounds at the president.
No, that’s not how things work in the real world.
So, when Mark S. Zaid, the “whistleblower’s” lawyer, got a little too high and mighty and started touting so-called “statutes” allowing for anonymity for anyone who exposes wrongdoing, Brit Hume of Fox News pounced.
Zaid took to Twitter and said, “Whistleblower statutes — passed by Congress — were always intended to allow for anonymity (except in certain circumstances) & it is current USGOVT policy to permit anonymity. In fact, it is usually one of the first Qs asked by OIG of a #whistleblower: ‘Do you want anonymity?'”
See this tweet below:
Whistleblower statutes – passed by Congress – were always intended to allow for anonymity (except in certain circumstances) & it is current USGOVT policy to permit anonymity. In fact, it is usually one of the first Qs asked by OIG of a #whistleblower: "do you want anonymity?" https://t.co/IfWDv9iXxB
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) November 5, 2019
Brit Hume was already fact-checking Zaid, a well-respected lawyer, just seconds after he hit “enter” on his tweet.
Hume took to Twitter and responded to Zaid.
“Note the key words here: ‘allow for anonymity’ and ‘permit anonymity,’” Hume said, introducing nuance into the equation.
“The law requires no one to keep the whistleblower’s identity secret except the inspector general who receives the complaints.'”
Note the key words here: “allow for anonymity” and “permit anonymity.” The law requires no one to keep the whistleblower’s identity secret except the inspector general who receives the complaints. https://t.co/6EWJ50jBkl
— Brit Hume (@brithume) November 5, 2019
So, in short, what does all of this mean?
It means Democrats who are keeping the whistleblower’s identity a secret are not doing it because of some law or mandate.
They’re simply choosing to keep quiet. That’s a big, massive, and very huge difference.
A version of this piece originally appeared in WayneDupree.com; this article is used by permission.
Read more at WayneDupree.com:
Reporter Says Media Got It Wrong: ‘Melania and Donald Aren’t Estranged, They’re Tender Lovers’
Report: Former CIA Analyst Says Brennan Created a Secret ‘Invitation-Only’ Task Force to Destroy Trump
Greg Gutfeld Calls Juan Williams ‘Ignorant’ for Claiming UFC Crowd Booed Trump
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.