All we have heard over the last month is the term "whistleblower." In conjunction with this term is another term that has been making the media rounds, that of "impeachment." Now, in the last week, we have learned that lawyers representing the first whistleblower are claiming that a second individual has stepped forward, bringing the whistleblower count to two.
What sets the second whistleblower apart is that he, or she, is being taunted as much more credible, as this one states that they have firsthand knowledge of the allegations made by the first whistleblower. Both whistleblowers are accusing President Trump of asking Ukraine to open an investigation into the former Vice President and presidential contender, Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
If Nancy Pelosi and crew decide to take the whistleblower's allegations to heart, as a result, turn them into a means for declaring articles of impeachment, then the whistleblower will be required to be questioned, in public and under oath. On Fox News, Senator Lindsey Graham reminded us that: "Nobody in America goes to jail or has anything done to them without confronting their accuser."
However, Graham's statement is very much at odds with the current laws in place that protect a whistleblower from any form of retaliation. Over this past weekend, an estimated ninety Democratic and Republican administration veteran former national security officials presented an open letter requesting that both the government and the media work to preserve the anonymity of the first whistleblower.
As for the legalities, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, states that a possible violation of either law, fraud, waste abuse or unnecessary government expenditures reported by a federal employee, that same employee will be protected under the Act against possible retaliation by their superiors. However, when first signed into law, the protection act did not include those in the intelligence community.
As a result, Congress, in 1998, extended those very same protections to workers in the intelligence community by enacting the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. With this Act, the officer had the option, when deeming certain information "urgent concern, to pass it along to the Inspector General (IG). After being reviewed by the IG, that individual then has the option of suggesting the Director of National Intelligence to present the information to Congress.
With all this said, it would appear that the most recent whistleblowers, that the Act is going to be upheld and the individual's identities kept in confidentiality. If this is indeed the case, then Trump will be stripped of his constitutional rights to come face to face with his accuser or accusers.
So, what’s the verdict—you decide.
Is this just another attempt to not only make Trump look bad, but to once again trample on the Constitution of this great nation?