Democrats are in hissy fits over protecting identification of their gossip-monger (wrongly labeling the person as a ‘whistle-blower’) but proven liars aren’t worthy of protection.

Comparing the actual call transcript to the gossipmonger transcript proves that point.

First, changing requirements to allow hearsay AFTER a complaint’s filed is telling, and that’s what the Intel-Community Inspector General did to provide this gossip its legs.

The ICIG is, himself, a deep-stater…it’s no surprise such deceitful actions were taken.

But, even beyond that, we learn from the actual call transcript the complaints are lies.

The gossip-monger complaints specify the following:

1. Alleges the President ‘pressured’ the Ukrainian President;
2. Alleges the President requested CrowdStrike servers be ‘turned over’ to him;
3. Alleges the President praised the current prosecutor-general Lutsenko;
4. Alleges the President suggested that Lutsenko be kept on;
5. Alleges the President referred to Ukrainian ‘corruption cases’ needing attention, beyond the election meddling and Biden’s brag about scuttling a prosecution.

And, yet, as can be plainly seen by reading the ACTUAL transcript:

1. At no time did the President ‘pressure’ the Ukrainian leader;
2. At no time did the President refer to more than one server, or demand them;
3. At no time did the President name or praise prosecutor general Lutsenko;
4. At no time did the President name or suggest Lutsenko be ‘kept in that position’;
5. At no time did the President mention multiple corruption cases.

Real whistleblowers may need to be protected…

…liars, especially those only relying on hearsay, shouldn’t be protected.

(And congressional Democrats willing to base impeachment on such tripe as this are themselves, by debasing the Constitution and their office, deserving of impeachment)