Republicans attacking the original Trump-Ukraine whistleblower are using classic diversionary tactics. Unless they are entirely lacking rationality, or wholly ignorant, these Republicans must know that the identity and motive of the whistleblower already are irrelevant for the investigation into President Trump’s behavior.
There is not a single thing reported by the whistleblower that is not either already verified, already proved wrong, or ultimately verifiable. What matters isn’t the identity or motive of the second-hand witness; what matters is the conglomeration of facts (or incorrect allegations) he relates.
The two most important aspects of the original complaint were: 1) Trump used a July 25 phone call to repeatedly press the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens and work with his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and 2) that his staff took the unusual step of moving the call’s transcript to a hyper-secure system ordinarily used for classified information. Both of those claims have been verified by the White House itself.
Most other details relayed by the whistleblower, concerning related events before and after that phone call, have also been confirmed independently. Some minor details, such as the report that a particular mid-level official was present for the call, have proven incorrect.
Either way, what matters are the facts, not who relates them. Nobody is relying on the whistleblower’s word alone. This is not like a court case where a witness is testifying as to facts only he can know, and where the witness’s own credibility is a crucial determinant of guilt or innocence. This is a case where the whistleblower, having made his complaint, can now fade to the background.
Republicans know this. They know that nothing essential in the complaint is unverifiable opinion or interpretation. To the extent the complaint makes judgments, those judgments can be independently analyzed by reference to the facts themselves.
It is therefore intellectually dishonest to attack the whistleblower, to demand his identity be released despite clear law to the contrary, or to act as if the whistleblower’s motives are in any way relevant to the accuracy of the information-gathering to come.
The old saying is that when facts are unwelcome, attack the messenger. It’s a clever, but entirely cynical, directive, unworthy of elected officials facing a momentous constitutional duty to impartially weigh evidence against a president.
