Here’s the likely whistleblower — and the questions he should answer

Politico’s Jack Shafer has eloquently argued that the press should name the whistleblower. It is not against the law – whistleblower protections are to prevent retaliation in the workplace and apply to his superiors, not the media. Yet while the press eagerly tried to out Deep Throat or the anonymous author of “A Warning,” they suddenly lack curiosity.

They’ve also been hypocritical. In September, The Times reported the whistleblower was a male CIA officer who worked at the White House and was now back at the CIA. Why? Executive Editor Dean Baquet said, “we wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.” The cynic might say they were trying to argue that the whistleblower was credible.

But if that’s the argument, and if Ciaramella is the whistleblower, isn’t it also relevant that he, according to Sperry, previously worked with CIA Director John Brennan, a fierce critic of Trump, and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s political opponent and the crux of the impeachment inquiry? That he’s a registered Democrat and that he was – again, according to Sperry – accused of leaking negative information about the Trump Administration and that’s why he was transferred back to Langley?

What, if anything, did he leak? Did he work with Biden on Ukraine, apparently Ciaramella’s area of expertise? Did he know about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Who told him about the call, and why did that person not complain instead of him? How did Schiff’s staff help him tailor the complaint?

This is only the fourth time in our history that a president has faced impeachment. Shouldn’t we know the answers to these questions now, and not in two, three years when the inevitable official reports and tell-all books come out? Why must we wait for the truth?