Opinion Pieces

The following op-ed appeared in the November 19, 2019 edition of the Washington Examiner.

The moniker “he who shall not be named” no longer refers to a fictional villain in a popular young adult fantasy series but the so-called whistleblower who coordinated with Rep. Adam Schiff’s committee to file a complaint that kicked off the impeachment investigation that’s brought productivity in Washington to a halt.

There’s just one problem. The “whistleblower” isn’t actually a whistleblower — he’s merely a leaker.

Andrew McCarthy explains that in order to legally qualify as a whistleblower, an official must report a “serious problem” that’s within the jurisdiction of the director of national intelligence. If the complaint is outside of the DNI’s authority, then the official receives none of the anonymity protections entitled to whistleblowers. President Trump’s foreign policy, including his phone calls with foreign presidents, are outside the DNI’s purview.

This is good news. The public deserves transparency. They have a right to judge the motivation of the person who helped launch the impeachment effort.

But the media continues to wrongfully insist that publishing the whistleblower’s name is illegal. The Washington Post wrote that officials have not named the whistleblower “in line with federal law designed to prevent retaliation.”

Where are they getting the idea that it’s illegal? Probably from Mark Zaid, the whistleblower’s lawyer who called for a “coup” in 2017. He’s refused to confirm the identity of his client. More, he seems to be threatening to sue anyone in the media that lets the whistleblower’s name slip. Sean Hannity told us on Nov. 4 he’s being threatened with lawsuits, and for now he’ll agree to “play the game for a little bit.”

Why are threats of lawsuits making all journalists go weak at the knees? What happened to this country’s great tradition of challenging power and getting all the facts out in the open?

But it’s not just the media that’s fallen for this ruse. Facebook and YouTube, too, have instituted new policies to scrub all mention of the whistleblower’s names from their platforms. YouTube didn’t explain why it implemented its policy. Facebook’s explanation is flimsy, explaining that naming the whistleblower “violates our coordinating harm policy.” Facebook goes on to say that its “harm policy” allegedly prohibits the “outing of a witness, informant or activist.” But those phrases are completely absent from Facebook’s community standards.

And so we have a predicament. The arbiters of public information have blocked off legitimate questions about the whistleblower’s background. They can’t be asked and won’t be answered.

This is a problem. We’re at the beginning of an impeachment trial that will be decided by public opinion, but the public isn’t being given all the facts. I think one newspaper’s motto summarizes what will happen if we don’t act: “Democracy dies in darkness.”