Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley issued a statement defending the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July.
The conversation garnered national interest after it was revealed that Trump urged Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, over the younger Biden’s work in Ukraine. Following the release of the transcript, the president has maintained that nothing in the call is worthy of impeachment, which is now under consideration, and he has publicly attacked the whistleblower.
“We should always work to respect whistleblowers’ requests for confidentiality. Any further media reports on the whistleblower’s identity don’t serve the public interest—even if the conflict sells more papers or attracts clicks,” Grassley’s Tuesday statement begins, which references a New York Times report that outed the whistleblower as a CIA officer.
The beginning of the statement also addresses the president’s repeated demands for the whistleblower’s identity to be made known. Trump tweeted Tuesday morning that the “so-called ‘Whistleblower’ has all second hand information” and that “almost everything he has said about my ‘perfect’ call with the Ukrainian President is wrong.” Trump went on to question why the public isn’t “entitled” to interview the whistleblower.
….the Whistleblower, and also the person who gave all of the false information to him. This is simply about a phone conversation that could not have been nicer, warmer, or better. No pressure at all (as confirmed by Ukrainian Pres.). It is just another Democrat Hoax!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 1, 2019
Grassley continued, “When it comes to whether someone qualifies as a whistleblower, the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren’t legal ones. It’s just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility.”
As he referenced, the whistleblower did not have direct knowledge of the details of the call.
Grassley also reiterated his stance that “rampant speculation” by the media or members of Congress is inappropriate.
