Democrats refused to tell anyone, even Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee who the Ukraine whistleblower is.
According to House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), even he doesn’t know who he is (despite the fact that his aide met with him, the whistleblower wrote Schiff a letter and Schiff has allegedly had to police the whistleblower’s name from being mentioned during the hearings or being set out as such in transcripts. It would be impossible to do that without knowing who he was, but that’s what Schiff represented to the American public during the hearing.
The media doesn’t know who he is, either, that’s how they know not to set forth his name in any accounts of the events and how they can scold any mention of his name, because they don’t know who he is (inset sarcasm here).
But despite that, now we’re hearing reports that the man no one knows has received a security detail, for how long is not clear.
But how is this possible that someone detailed security for him, since no one knows who he is? And how does media know the whistleblower has this security if they don’t know who the whistleblower is?
No one knows who the whistleblower is according to Adam Schiff.
— Conservative X (@Conservative_X1) December 26, 2019
Because he is genuinely in danger or because the corrupt bureaucracy wants to create the illusion of danger and reports it to the journalists to repeat it as if it's news?
— Adeptus Archer (@ArcherMint) December 26, 2019
Perhaps Adam Schiff would like to explain this paradox?