'Whistleblower' must testify under oath and in person: Rep. Jim Jordan The Democrats’ impeachment push, based on this anonymous and secondhand complaint, is fundamentally unfair: Opposing view

Jim Jordan | Opinion contributor

Show Caption Hide Caption What is the difference between a whistleblower and a leaker? Whistleblowers have been at time essential and detrimental to a country's democracy, but what makes them different than a leaker? We explain.

There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Only one knows the “whistleblower’s” identity: Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

Democrats are trying to impeach President Donald Trump less than a year before the election based on claims from this anonymous individual who has no firsthand knowledge of the president’s phone call with Ukraine’s president, but who admitted a political bias and reportedly worked with Joe Biden, a 2020 presidential candidate.

Six weeks ago, Schiff said the “whistleblower” would testify. He has now changed his mind. What happened in the interim? Just two things: We learned the individual met with Schiff’s staff. And we learned about their political bias.

The “whistleblower” only knew about the call from the characterizations of others. He waited 18 days before filing a complaint with the inspector general. During those 18 days, the “whistleblower” met with Schiff’s staff but failed to disclose this communication to the inspector general. Schiff also hid this meeting.

Americans understand fairness. They know when someone is getting a raw deal. The Democrats’ impeachment push, based on this anonymous and secondhand complaint, is fundamentally unfair.

OUR VIEW: Don't reveal the whistleblower

Despite Schiff’s biased process, four fundamental facts have not changed:

►President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky affirmed there was no quid pro quo and no pressure.

►The transcript of the call shows no conditionality.

►At the time of the call, Ukraine did not know security aid was delayed.

►Ukraine never took any of the actions it was supposedly under pressure to take.

Government whistleblowers should be protected. But a fundamental tenet of due process is the ability to confront one’s accusers. On a matter as grave as impeachment, Americans should assess for themselves the credibility and motivations of the individual who initiated the inquiry.

That is why the “whistleblower” must testify under oath and in person.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

If you can't see this reader poll, please refresh your page.