Misuse of Whistleblower Law Created Impeachment Farce

January 31, 2020 Updated: February 2, 2020


Who is the whistleblower, the man or woman who launched a thousand Schiffs?

Okay, bad joke. In any case, anyone with the slightest interest already knows who he or she is, although some pretend they don’t, such as Chief Justice John Roberts and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Nevertheless, his (let’s be at least that honest) identity is being hidden because that is allegedly required by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. It’s unclear whether that is true.

But let’s be honest a second time. Congress (if it’s still awake) and legal scholars should look immediately into revising the Whistleblower Protection Act, because it appears to have been turned on its head and used as a weapon for some of the most despicable behavior in U.S. history. Something’s drastically wrong with its language, given that it could be exploited that way.

The misuse of this act is the proximate cause of the embarrassing impeachment charade that has been numbing minds across our republic for weeks, almost always ignoring the sublime and going straight to the ultra-ridiculous—Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar debating the law with Alan Dershowitz on “The View.”

America deserves to know how [name redacted] was able to manipulate this law for such egregious ends, who manipulated it with him (Was it the inspector general? Schiff personnel? Schiff himself? Others?), and when did it start? That last may take us way back into 2015–2016, back to the days of the Steele dossier. So many things are connected now.

We need to know the answer. Was [name redacted] really a whistleblower or just another low rent, stomach-turning political operative, the kind of people who—while assuming they know better than the rest of us—are like termites undermining the fabric of our republic?

Rumors say this particular whistleblower was once an aide of some sort to Joe Biden, the very person whose alleged potential corruption is at the center of the impeachment discussions. Was the whistleblower’s real objective to rescue his former boss and his boss’s son from being exposed as something akin to racketeers?

He also is said to have gilded the lily (i.e., exaggerated the content) of President Donald Trump’s now-famous second phone call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. In other words, he ginned things up.

If that connection and those reports are accurate, then the whole impeachment and trial weren’t only invalid, but were pernicious and corrupt in and of themselves—no more than a malicious political hit job manufactured to bring down a president, or seriously wound him, in a mass television spectacle. The instigation of the trial would then be a form of treason.

Did Roberts see that when he forbade Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) question that might have identified the whistleblower? Who knows, but it’s likely Roberts wouldn’t have permitted the whistleblower to be called as a witness because the chief justice is in obeisance to this law so wide open to exploitation. Senate Republicans would have to overrule him, as the Constitution permits, but apparently would be loathe to do so, due to poor “optics.”

Without testimony from the whistleblower, without giving the president the opportunity to confront his accuser, the trial is and was an absurdity—legally and morally.

And given that this is all the fruit of a poisoned tree, actually approaching a poisoned forest, it should be no surprise that the Democrats had to rely on Schiff, a man who lied dozens of times to America about Trump–Russia collusion, to carry their water for them as House manager. He is probably the only one who could keep the story together. He invented a good deal of it, after all.

With the trial about to be over as I write this, the proverbial sleeping dogs can’t be left to lie. All this must be unearthed and studied. Schiff says the president can’t be vindicated if the trial is short-circuited; ditto for Schiff and then some. We know who he is. History does, too.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said he will explore all this in front of his Senate committee. Let’s hope he follows through.

Epoch Times senior political analyst Roger L. Simon is also an author and Academy Award-nominated screenwriter. His latest book is “The GOAT.” Follow him on Twitter @rogerlsimon.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Roger L. Simon is an award-winning novelist, Oscar-nominated screenwriter, co-founder of PJMedia, and now, editor-at-large for The Epoch Times. His most recent books are “The GOAT” (fiction) and “I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already” (nonfiction). He can be found on GETTR and Parler @rogerlsimon.