According to the New York Times, “A second intelligence official who was alarmed by President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine is weighing whether to file his own formal whistle-blower complaint and testify to Congress.” Given the appearance of this story in the New York Times, this potential whistleblower’s “weighing” doesn’t appear to be a private affair. He (or she) is no Hamlet.
The Times has more to say about this second potential whistleblower:
[He or has] has more direct information about the events than the first whistle-blower, whose complaint that Mr. Trump was using his power to get Ukraine to investigate his political rivals touched off an impeachment inquiry. The second official is among those interviewed by the intelligence community inspector general to corroborate the allegations of the original whistle-blower, one of the people said.
The Times thinks a second whistleblower complaint would be significant:
A new complaint, particularly from someone closer to the events, would potentially add further credibility to the account of the first whistle-blower, a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to the National Security Council at one point.
At this point, though, I’m not sure it matters much how many whistleblower complaints will be filed. The whistle has been blown and the second whistleblower has been interviewed by the intelligence community IG. I assume that he (or she) eventually will also be interviewed by House Democrats whether he “comes forward” or not. So will other key players in the intelligence community and the State Department.
The inquiry into President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine now has a life of its own, to say the least. It will be investigated the same way it would be if the allegations of wrongdoing originated from a source other than a whistleblower.
Thus, it no longer really matters, for purposes of figuring out what happened, whether the original whistleblower had first hand knowledge of events, whether he got certain things wrong, whether he actually has official whistleblower status, or what his motive was.
Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller points out that “an additional whistleblower is also likely to fuel Trump allies’ criticism that the complaints are part of an orchestrated attack on the president.” I assume this whole thing is an orchestrated attack on the president.
The key questions, though, are whether the attack is supported by facts and whether, if it is, the facts give rise to a case for impeachment.