Brit Hume compelled to translate whistleblower attorney’s misleading spin on ‘anonymity’ statutes

With the Democrats taking every precaution to keep the Ukraine whistleblower’s identity a secret, it’s no wonder Republicans are demanding full transparency and disclosure. After all, impeachment is not a light undertaking, nor should it be tainted by the shroud of secrecy and “anonymity.”

That is why people like Rand Paul, Jim Jordan and the president himself have asked time and again for the whistleblower to step forward and subject him- or herself to public and legal scrutiny. Essentially, there is a need to pull back the curtain and shine the light of day on a process that a lot of people think stinks.

But when Mark S. Zaid, lawyer to the whistleblower, touted statutes allowing for anonymity for those who expose wrongdoing, Fox News’ senior political analyst Brit Hume felt the need to step in and clarify a few things.

“Whistleblower statutes — passed by Congress — were always intended to allow for anonymity (except in certain circumstances) & it is current USGOVT policy to permit anonymity,” Zaid tweeted, sharing a video of Lindsey Graham reminding people that whistleblower statues don’t guarantee anonymity. “In fact, it is usually one of the first Qs asked by OIG of a #whistleblower: ‘do you want anonymity?'”

That’s when Hume decided to straighten Zaid out in a professional, eloquent and factually accurate way.

“Note the key words here: ‘allow for anonymity’ and ‘permit anonymity,'” Hume said, introducing nuance into the equation. “The law requires no one to keep the whistleblower’s identity secret except the inspector general who receives the complaints.”

This means that all of the Democrats who are willingly keeping the whistleblower’s identity a secret are not doing so because of some statutory mandate; they are choosing to. Knowing that impeachment is a divisive issue coming at a time when the United States political climate is akin to a pot of boiling oil, Democrats are voluntarily deepening the divide by obstructing transparency.

But it’s not as if Zaid has any interest in fairness in this whole process. An unearthed tweet from July 1, 2017 shows the lawyer promising a frightened Twitter user that he will “get rid of” President Trump. This, after a previous tweet stating that he’d “rather be in Canada.” Perhaps there is more political bias than just that of the whistleblower?


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles