This weekend, Mark Zaid, the lead attorney for the so-called whistleblower, offered to have his client answer written questions from Impeachment Committee Republicans. It didn’t take long for Republicans to reject that offer:

But, late Sunday, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seemingly rejected the offer from whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid, saying “written answers will not provide a sufficient opportunity to probe all the relevant facts and cross examine the so-called whistleblower. You don’t get to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it,” Jordan said.

Zaid’s reply came through this tweet:


About those whistleblower protections, it’s apparent that Mr. Zaid is doing the deflecting:

In order to submit an ICWPA complaint the following elements must be met:

Eligible Originator: Only applies to employees (civilian, military or contractor) assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA). Does not apply to activities of the military services, combatant commands, or Office of Secretary of Defense.

In other words, this anonymous informant isn’t a heroic whistleblower saving the republic. He’s just another CIA snitch spying on President Trump.

That means that Democrats are protecting this snitch for purely partisan purposes. This isn’t done for patriotic purposes. It’s done because Democrats want to impeach President Trump so badly they’d say or do anything to make it happen. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, knows this law. If he doesn’t, then he isn’t qualified to be the House Impeachment Committee. That’s part of his responsibility.

According to Jason Chaffetz, the former chair of the House Oversight Committee, that committee routinely went through whistleblower submissions. Why wouldn’t Schiff’s committee do the same? This anonymous informant doesn’t qualify for whistleblower protections because he/she isn’t “assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA).” Also, the informant isn’t reporting on a covered person. It’s obvious that this person is a snitch.

This is just posturing anyway. The minute that the House impeaches President Trump, the trial is held in the Senate. At that point, the Senate will set the rules and issue the subpoenas. At that point, Adam Schiff will lose his ability to protect this whistleblower. That will leave Mr. Zaid with little negotiating leverage at that future point.

I’d consider this offer a let’s-see-if-they-blink offer. If Jordan, Nunes and others blink, fantastic for Zaid’s client. If they don’t, which appears to be the case, Zaid hasn’t lost anything by trying.

2 Responses to “Mark Zaid vs. Jim Jordan”

  • eric z says:

    What matters at this point is the totality of what Trump did, especially via backchannel Rudy. How public awareness of things originated is background – and it is disingenuous to make a big stink about the WB motivation. The truth of what Trump did, and how the House and Senate respond is the only real story. All else is disinfo par excellence. Blowing smoke about what’s water under the bridge only makes the smoke blower look as if grasping for straws. Keep the eyes on the prize – what was the totality of Trump action direct by phone and indirectly via henchmen. Aside from Trump’s “so what” all else from GOP operatives is spin. Using Rudy backchannel was using something short of Trump’s earlier reliance on Roy Cohn, who had the capability to match the meanness. It really is sad that no verbatim transcript of the Trump call, or a tape, does not exist, only a White Hiouse pieced together thing at its outset saying, “not verbatim.” So, let the process unfold without losing focus – what was done by whom, at Trump’s behest or based on belief of what he wanted, and was that sufficient grounds to impeach. And then the Senate nosecount comes into play, and Trump skates. Why bother? Pelosi resisted getting into the impeachment briar patch, but the caucus decided, and now we have sick theater. What’s the quote about “sound and fury signifying nothing?”

  • Gary Gross says:

    What’s the quote about “sound and fury signifying nothing?”

    That’s from Shakespeare. Centuries later, it was used by SportsCenter hosts. LOL

Leave a Reply