Whistleblower’s Lawyers Agree Their Client’s Testimony Is Now Irrelevant

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 11: The US flag is visible on the House side of the U.S. Capitol building where Marie Louise Yovanovitch, former United States Ambassador to Ukraine, arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, D... WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 11: The US flag is visible on the House side of the U.S. Capitol building where Marie Louise Yovanovitch, former United States Ambassador to Ukraine, arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., October 11, 2019, to answer questions related to the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. Yovanovitch spoke to lawmakers in a closed meeting. (Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post via Getty Images) MORE LESS
|
October 25, 2019 3:02 p.m.
JOIN TPM FOR JUST $1

It seems House Democrats and the whistleblower’s lawyers are on the same page when it comes to whether the whistleblower who shed light on President Trump’s Ukraine scheme needs to testify.

In a Washington Post op-ed Friday, the whistleblower’s lawyers Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid wrote that although speculation of their client’s identity has only grown — noting how President Trump and his supporters have been on a crusade to expose the still-anonymous official — “the reality is that the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.”

Earlier Friday, the Post reported that Democrats now feel that the whistleblower’s initial complaint has become increasingly irrelevant amid the ongoing testimonies of Trump administration officials.

Bakaj and Zaid agreed with the Democrats’ sentiment, citing the White House-released memo of the now-infamous July call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, the text messages provided to the House by former U.S. special representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker and the congressional testimonies by figures with knowledge of the circumstances that the whistleblower’s complaint first raised.

“Much of what has been disclosed since the release of our client’s complaint actually exceeds the whistleblower’s knowledge of what transpired at the time the complaint was submitted,” Bakaj and Zaid wrote. “Because our client has no additional information about the President’s call, there is no justification for exposing their identity and all the risks that would follow.”

Read Bakaj and Zaid’s op-ed in the Washington Post here.

Comments
Masthead Masthead
Editor & Publisher:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Senior Editor:
Special Projects Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporter:
Senior Newswriters:
Newswriters:
Editor at Large:
General Manager & General Counsel:
Executive Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Publishing Associate:
Front-End Developer:
Senior Designer: