Republicans Keep Saying They Want to Question the Whistleblower. Now May Be Their Chance.

adrian825/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Sunday morning, the lawyer for the whistleblower whose complaint is at the center of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump said he has offered Republicans the chance to submit written questions directly to his client:

The lawyer, Mark Zaid, also blasted repeated GOP efforts to unmask the whistleblower’s identity: 

As CBS News reported Sunday:

Attorney Mark Zaid told CBS News he contacted Representative Devin Nunes, the committee’s ranking member, on Saturday to say his client is willing to answer Republicans’ questions under oath and penalty of perjury if lawmakers submitted written questions to the whistleblower’s legal team. The inspector general of the intelligence community, a Trump appointee, could verify the whistleblower’s identity in order to satisfy the committee’s minority members while protecting the individual’s anonymity.

Previously, the whistleblower had offered to answer questions under oath and in writing if submitted by the House Intelligence Committee as a whole. This new offer would be a direct channel of communication with the Republicans who are in the minority on that committee. Republican leadership has complained that the process is unfair and overly restrictive on their ability to question witnesses.

It’s still unclear if Republicans will take Zaid and the whistleblower up on their offer; Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the committee, did not respond to CBS’ request for a comment. Meanwhile, the Democrats have cooled on the possibility of having the whistleblower testify. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the House Intelligence Committee chair, said last month that despite Democrats’ initial interest in speaking to the whistleblower while safeguarding their identity, the party is less eager to do so since Trump and the Republicans started attacking the whistleblower’s anonymity and calling for them to be unmasked. “Given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower, who wasn’t on the call, to tell us what took place during the call,” Schiff said last month. 

LESS DREADING, MORE DOING

This is the rubber-meets-road moment: the early days in our first fundraising drive since we took a big swing and merged with CIR to bring fearless investigative reporting to the internet, radio, video, and everywhere else that people need an antidote to lies and propaganda.

Donations have started slow, and we hope that explaining, level-headedly, why your support really is everything for our reporting will make a difference. Learn more in “Less Dreading, More Doing,” or in this 2:28 video about our merger (that literally just won an award), and please pitch in if you can right now.

payment methods

LESS DREADING, MORE DOING

This is the rubber-meets-road moment: the early days in our first fundraising drive since we took a big swing and merged with CIR to bring fearless investigative reporting to the internet, radio, video, and everywhere else that people need an antidote to lies and propaganda.

Donations have started slow, and we hope that explaining, level-headedly, why your support really is everything for our reporting will make a difference. Learn more in “Less Dreading, More Doing,” or in this 2:28 video about our merger (that literally just won an award), and please pitch in if you can right now.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate