My case for outing the whistle-blower.
Despite the fact that all of the relevant parts of the whistle-blower’s complaint have been corroborated by other witnesses (or by the president himself), it is still vitally important that we know the identity of the whistle-blower that raised concerns about the July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, and to allow the American people to hear him testify, for the reasons I cite below.
Maybe he (and we know it is a “he,” thank goodness) is exceptionally tall or short, for example. If he were abnormally tall and works for the CIA (how fortunate we are to know that too!) maybe he has had occasion to stand in close proximity to the president and to look down. In this case he would have been able to see that the president’s hair is a trick, and therefore he might harbor bias against the president. On the other hand, if he were unusually short, we could surmise that he has a Napoleon complex. Maybe he himself wants to be president. We’d want to know that too.
For another example, maybe we will see (and be able to judge for ourselves from the many pictures that will certainly emerge) that his teeth are not as white as they could be — as can be the case when a person has consumed a large quantity of black tea. This may suggest that the whistle-blower’s loyalties lie not with The United States, but somewhere else, like The United Kingdom.
It also may be useful to know what culture, and therefore climate, the whistle-blower’s ancestors came from. Studies have shown that cultures from warmer climates tend to eat spicy food while cultures from colder climates eat bland food. This fact would be helpful should we need to know what to feed the whistle-blower in jail or what to feed his family at the soup kitchen.
Since it is generally agreed that all government is good (local, state, federal, both within the United States and everywhere else as well), and that more government is always better than less, there is no need put in the effort to enforce the whistle-blower protections we now have. There will certainly never be another case where we need to bring dubious government actions to light. Adam Schiff, let us have the name of the whistle-blower now.
Jack Silbert, curator