NYT: ‘Whistleblower’ Redacted Third Fact Suggesting Potential Bias Against Trump

The New York Times reported that, along with the intelligence officer “whistleblower” being a registered Democrat and having a “professional relationship” with a 2020 Democrat, there remains a third redacted reason critics could accuse him of “potential bias” when submitting his complaint to the Intelligence Community inspector general.

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported Tuesday that the intelligence officer “whistleblower” had a “professional relationship” with a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate and was a registered Democrat, which critics could use to accuse the “whistleblower” of bias against President Donald Trump and his administration.

However, the New York Times‘ Nicholas Fandos also reported Tuesday that there remains a third reason that the “whistleblower identified” that could “be used to accuse him of potential bias against Mr. Trump.”

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson suggested in his initial review of the complaint that there are some indications of “an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.”

The third indication remains a secret to the public; however, the others, like his party affiliation and history with a presidential candidate, could shed light on the intelligence officer’s motivations to submit a whistleblower complaint regarding President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Mark Zaid, a lawyer for the “whistleblower,” released a statement Wednesday attempting to dispel accusations of the whistleblower’s alleged political bias against the president.

Zaid said that these accusations of political bias had been used to “mischaracterize” and “detract” from the “substance of the complaint.” Further, Zaid said the “whistleblower is not the story” and that the “identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.”

Prominent Republicans across the political spectrum have argued that the public should know the identity of the “whistleblower” and his complaint that pushed Democrats to move towards an impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said last week that the “whistleblower” should “come forward” given the fallout of his or her complaint.

“Ultimately, if someone’s going to accuse you of something that’s going to bring down a presidency, I think we deserve to know who that person is,” Sen. Paul said.

“I think there are reasons to have whistleblower statutes, and have anonymity. But if you’re accusing somebody of something with the ramifications of impeachment, I think really the person ought to come forward,” he added.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) contended that the whistleblowers should be interviewed under oath.

“Here’s what’s going to happen: if the whistleblowers’ allegations are turned into an impeachment article it’s imperative that the whistleblower be interviewed in public, under oath, and cross-examined,” Graham said Sunday.

Graham added that if this does not happen in the House,”I’ll make sure it happens in the Senate.”

President Trump tweeted last week, asking why the country is not “entitled” to learn everything about the Whistleblower, and also the person who gave all of the false information to him.

So if the so-called “Whistleblower” has all second hand information, and almost everything he has said about my “perfect” call with the Ukrainian President is wrong (much to the embarrassment of Pelosi & Schiff), why aren’t we entitled to interview & learn everything about….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 1, 2019