A second whistleblower has come forward, according to the Washington Examiner and other outlets, with alleged claims of President Donald Trump’s interest in Ukraine — including the July 25, 2019 telephone call between the commander-in-chief and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Let’s pause for a moment here.

What is meant by a “second whistleblower”?

More from LifeZette TV

MORE NEWS: Robert De Niro Loses It: Says If Trump Wins, ‘We’re Into Fascism, Period’

There was never a first “whistleblower.”

On Trump’s phone call, there were no promises made, no quid pro quo, no withholding of military aid, no “pressure,” no bringing up Joe Biden “eight times” — nothing of that kind.

Should President Donald Trump be impeached? Yes No Not sure Email Address (required) By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement Results Vote

These are liberal activists desperately trying to interfere in the 2020 election, in my view.

I expect the Democrats to manufacture at least 30 more whistleblowers in the end.

Related: Pompeo Defends Trump, Had Duty to Investigate Corruption

They have been making things up since Trump took office.

MORE NEWS: As Crime Rises In Washington, Official Wants to End Felony Incarceration

It sure would be nice if they did something other than try to take down an elected president.

By the way, it doesn’t matter; everyone in the world knows what was said on the call.

The transcript has already been released.

“The [new] whistleblower, whose existence was first reported [on] Sunday, is similar to the first whistleblower, also an intelligence official, and according to their lawyers, has firsthand knowledge related to the events detailed in the first whistleblower’s declassified complaint from August; has met with the intelligence community’s watchdog Michael Atkinson; and is being represented by Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid, the same attorneys representing the first whistleblower, the Washington Examiner can confirm,” that outlet reported.

Related: Ted Cruz Says ‘Whistleblowers’ Should Come Forward on Obama, Brennan

“Zaid told the Washington Examiner that the second whistleblower ‘spoke to ICIG’ but ‘has not filed [their] own complaint’ and ‘doesn’t need to.’ Zaid said that this new whistleblower has ‘firsthand knowledge that supported the first whistleblower,'” the same publication noted.

“Zaid tweeted that this whistleblower ‘also made a protected disclosure under the law and cannot be retaliated against.'”

“’I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers in connection to the underlying August 12, 2019, disclosure to the Intelligence Community Inspector General,’ whistleblower attorney Andrew Bakaj tweeted on Sunday morning. “‘No further comment at this time,'” the Examiner reported.

The news of a second “whistleblower” comes after a report from The New York Times on Friday.

That publication reported that “another person had been considering stepping forward,” the Examiner noted, although Zaid told the Examiner “he didn’t know if his new client was the same person in The New York Times article.”

The first so-called second hand information “Whistleblower” got my phone conversation almost completely wrong, so now word is they are going to the bench and another “Whistleblower” is coming in from the Deep State, also with second hand info. Meet with Shifty. Keep them coming! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2019

There could be 1,000 “whistleblowers” about the phone call. It all comes down to this: Either someone has evidence the transcription of the call was incorrect — or there are no grounds for impeachment.

And the transcript of Trump’s call does not come close to impeachment.

I have noticed every time liberals have “earth-shattering evidence,” that so-called “evidence” comes from unnamed sources.

Also, there is not one liberal pundit who will answer the question, “Why has there been no vote on impeachment in the House?” Conservative pundits bring up the fact that a vote for impeachment would allow Republicans to have their subpoena power.

Let’s make one thing clear — again. Former Vice President Joe Biden is not Trump’s political opponent — not that it matters to these people. There is no Democrat nominee as of yet for the presidential election next year.

Running for an election that will be held more than a year from now does not give someone immunity from investigation or prosecution for past actions.

As far as the “whistleblowers” go, it is not appearing that this was a fraudulent scam by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who lied about having any contact with the “whistleblowers.”

Everything in Trump’s July 25 conversation was within the boundaries of the 1998 treaty signed by then-President Bill Clinton; that agreement is called the “Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters” treaty. Trump was right, as president, to ask about corruption and to express concern about it.

Yet everything Joe Biden potentially did was bribery for his sons and his monetary gain, in my opinion.

A version of this piece originally appeared in WayneDupree.com; this article is used by permission.

Read more at WayneDupree.com:

Nancy Pelosi’s Son Paul Jr. Was Exec at ‘Ukraine-Based Gas Company,’ Similar to Hunter Biden

Ann Coulter Defends Trump and Exposes ‘Hidden Reason’ Behind Dems Impeachment Farce

Sports Illustrated Collapsing, Mass Layoffs, Downsizing After Pushing Unpopular Feminist Propaganda

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.