President Donald Trump listens as Sen. Rand Paul speaks at a rally at Alumni Coliseum in Richmond, Kentucky, Saturday, Oct. 13, 2018. Andrew Harnik/AP

President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress continue to focus on outing the whistleblower who filed a complaint that led to the impeachment inquiry.

Donald Trump Jr. tweeted the alleged name of the whistleblower on Wednesday, and Sen. Rand Paul has said he will „probably“ say the name publicly.

But the whistleblower’s identity is not relevant. The impeachment inquiry has gathered evidence that corroborates the whistleblower complaint and goes well beyond it.

If Trump and other Republicans‘ hope is that they’ll discredit the allegations against the president by revealing the whistleblower as a partisan actor, of which there’s no evidence, they’re too late.

„The whistleblower is not the story and the whistleblower’s background is no longer relevant. All that matters is the full and complete record outlining the president’s actions,“ a legal expert told Insider.

Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

President Donald Trump and his GOP allies have relentlessly sought to unmask the anonymous US intelligence official behind the whistleblower complaint that sparked the impeachment inquiry, despite the fact that it’s irrelevant at this point.

Donald Trump Jr. tweeted the alleged name of the whistleblower on Wednesday, and was excoriated by the whistleblower’s legal representation as a consequence.

GOP Sen. Rand Paul last Thursday shared an article via Twitter with unconfirmed details about who the whistleblower is and called for the whistleblower to be subpoenaed to testify under oath about „Hunter Biden and corruption.“

Paul hasn’t stopped in these efforts in the days since, and alongside Trump at a campaign rally in Kentucky on Monday called on the media to print the alleged name of the anonymous whistleblower. On Tuesday, Paul told reporters he would „probably“ out the whistleblower himself.

„I’m more than willing to and I probably will at some point,“ Paul said. „There is no law preventing anybody from saying the name.“

But naming anyone as the whistleblower, whether true or not, could place that person in serious danger. And the public disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity would not undermine the mounting slew of damning evidence against the president.

The whistleblower complaint has been corroborated by multiple witnesses in testimony to House lawmakers, and some of its details have been publicly confirmed by the president even as he’s referred to the complaint as „fictitious.“

Tweet Embed:

//twitter.com/mims/statuses/1187547459700121600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Where is the Whistleblower, and why did he or she write such a fictitious and incorrect account of my phone call with the Ukrainian President? Why did the IG allow this to happen? Who is the so-called Informant (Schiff?) who was so inaccurate? A giant Scam!

The House took a historic step last Thursday in passing a resolution that formalized the impeachment inquiry and signaled the process will begin to transition into a more public phase. Republicans have for weeks complained about the process and the closed-door interviews with witnesses, and they’re now gradually shifting into focusing more on the whistleblower’s identity as they struggle to defend the president against the substance of the inquiry.

But if Trump and other Republicans‘ hope is that they’ll discredit the allegations against the president by revealing the whistleblower as a partisan actor — they’re too late.

‚The reality is that the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant‘

President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Monday, Oct. 21, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) Associated Press

With the trove of information that’s been gathered as the Ukraine scandal has gained speed, the impeachment inquiry has gone well beyond the complaint that catalyzed it. At this point, the whistleblower’s part in this escalating political drama has largely been played out.

As the whistleblower’s lawyers — Andrew P. Bakaj and Mark S. Zaid — put it in an op-ed for The Washington Post last week: „As each allegation in the complaint is substantiated by new witnesses, the president and his supporters remain fanatically devoted to bringing our client into the spotlight. But the reality is that the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.“

Bakaj and Zaid added that much of what’s been disclosed since the complaint was released in late September „actually exceeds the whistleblower’s knowledge of what transpired at the time the complaint was submitted.“ The attorneys said their client has „no additional information“ and therefore there’s „no justification for exposing their identity and all the risks that would follow.“

Bakaj and Zaid reiterated they’ve notified both the House and Senate intelligence committees that the whistleblower is willing to answer questions in writing and under oath.

The evidence against Trump is damning, but Republicans aren’t done defending him

The whistleblower complaint centers around a July 25 phone call in which Trump urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in relation to the latter’s work for a Ukrainian natural gas company. There’s no evidence of illegal activity on the part of either Biden.

Trump and his allies have dismissed the complaint as hearsay, given it was based off second-hand information. But a memo willingly released by the White House confirms that Trump pressured Zelensky in this way, and Trump has publicly admitted it. And a top national security aide who was on the July 25 call, Iraq War veteran Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, testified to House lawmakers that he was so alarmed by what transpired he repeatedly expressed concern with his superiors.

Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a military officer at the National Security Council, center, arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2019, to appear before a House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Committee on Oversight and Reform joint interview with the transcript to be part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.(AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) Associated Press

Additionally, multiple witnesses have provided testimony to House lawmakers that’s corroborated the existence of some form of a quid pro quo involving roughly $400 million in military aid in Trump’s efforts to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. These witnesses include current and former members of the Trump administration, as well as decorated US military veterans and career diplomats.

Evidence of a quid pro quo has also come via a trove of text messages provided to the House by Trump’s former special envoy for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and public statements from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney (though he later walked back on those remarks).

But none of these factors have stopped Republicans from speculating about the identity of the whistleblower and pushing for public testimony.

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, a close ally of Trump, last Tuesday indicated that he has questions about the whistleblower’s motives. Jordan told reporters: „It’s tough to determine someone’s credibility if you can’t put them under oath and ask them questions.“

The same day, Trump once again tweeted: „Where’s The Whistleblower?“ The president has repeatedly tweeted about this, and on Monday demanded that the the whistleblower be „brought forward to testify.“

Trump, who never did an in-person interview as part of the Russia investigation and only submitted written answers, also rejected the offer for written testimony from the whistleblower.

‚The whistleblower is not the story‘

Bradley P. Moss, a national security lawyer and partner at Zaid’s law firm, on Friday told Insider these efforts from Republicans are an „irresponsible political deflection“ and „beneath the dignity of the offices these lawmakers hold.“

Moss added: „The whistleblower is not the story and the whistleblower’s background is no longer relevant. All that matters is the full and complete record outlining the president’s actions, and specifically whether that conduct merits invocation of the constitutional remedy of impeachment or not.“

Congressional Democrats have also raised alarm and slammed Republicans for seeking to out the whistleblower.

Last week, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell told reporters: „We have a long-standing concern that the president and his allies in Congress aren’t interested in the underlying act but are interested in risking the life of the whistleblower.“