FILE – In this Jan. 1, 2010 file photo, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh speaks during a news conference at The Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu. Advertisers and some radio stations may have abandoned Limbaugh for calling a Georgetown law student a “slut.” But the CEO of the radio company that distributes Limbaugh’s show, Clear Channel, says he’s sticking with the conservative talk show host, calling him the “king” of radio. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File)
Rush Limbaugh knows the whistleblower’s name. He says everyone in Washington does.
For obvious reasons, it’s in the Democrats’ best interests to keep the name under wraps. And no Republican wants to be the first to report the name. Rush said, “They’re just trying to figure out a way to get it in the public. Kind of like everybody knew about the Steele dossier but nobody knew how to get it into the public, so they ran a scam on Trump to tell him about the golden showers story and, voila, that bogus dossier makes it into the news.”
Earlier today, I wrote a post about the most problematic part of Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman’s testimony. Speaking before Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, he said he had shared read-outs of the call with others afterward. He had included this in his prepared remarks as well. Vindman wrote that he had shared with “a very small group of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relative need to know.” I questioned if a member of this group might be the whistleblower. Or if not, perhaps a member of this group told the whistleblower.
When Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) heard Vindman’s statement, he immediately asked him how many others he shared this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to reporters following the hearing, Schiff said, “No, no, no, no, we’re not going to let him answer that question.”
Schiff may think he can keep the whistleblower out of this. And the reporters accusing Jim Jordan of trying to arrive at the whistleblower’s name through the process of elimination may also believe they can keep it quiet. But if everyone in Washington knows it, it can’t remain private forever.
Nor should it.
Anyway, Rush said, Vindman “may be the guy — we don’t know — Vindman may be the guy that told the whistleblower. So Vindman would actually be silent whistleblower number 1. The whistleblower we all know about would be whistleblower number 2. He’s the guy that called Schiff. And they were all working with Schiff. And Schiff doesn’t want that to come out.”
On Tuesday, The Daily Beast published a story entitled “Nunes Aide Is Leaking the Ukraine Whistleblower’s Name, Sources Say.” The lede says, “Derek Harvey, a former intelligence analyst, has also been spreading disinformation about an aide to Adam Schiff.” The article tells us this information has come from “two knowledgeable sources.” According to The Daily Beast:
Derek Harvey, who works for Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, has provided notes for House Republicans identifying the whistleblower’s name ahead of the high-profile depositions of Trump administration appointees and civil servants in the impeachment inquiry. The purpose of the notes, one source said, is to get the whistleblower’s name into the record of the proceedings, which committee chairman Adam Schiff has pledged to eventually release. In other words: it’s an attempt to out the anonymous official who helped trigger the impeachment inquiry.
Over the weekend, The Washington Post reported that “GOP lawmakers and staffers have “repeatedly” used a name purporting to be that of the whistleblower during the depositions.”
There have been a number of recent articles in left-leaning publications accusing Republicans of playing it fast and loose with the whistleblower’s name. That’s a problem for Democrats because once it’s known, and his or her connection (I think it’s a he) to Schiff is discovered, the air will start escaping from the repugnant representative’s impeachment balloon. Until it deflates just like the Mueller balloon did.
Republicans need to question the whistleblower under oath. Lindsey Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena this individual.
One of the attorneys representing the whistleblower, Mark Zaid, told The Daily Beast, “Exposing the identity of the whistleblower and attacking our client would do nothing to undercut the validity of the complaint’s allegations. What it would do, however, is put that individual and their family at risk of harm.
Well, sorry darlin’ – but that’s just a risk we’ll have to take.