The lawyer of the whistleblower whose identity has said that his client is ready to answer Republican questions about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
The attorney of the whistleblower, Mark Zaid has assured the House Republicans of timely answers when they submit their questions. “We are ready to cooperate and ensure facts,” he wrote. The revelations of the whistleblower spurred the impeachment process against President Trump.
Republicans, however, have accused Democrats of trying to rig the process. They argue that the impeachment inquiry against the President is secretive and one-sided. Following the complaints by the House Republicans, Zaid tweeted on Sunday that his client is willing to answer the written questions of Republicans.
The offer made by Zaid to take questions from Republicans concerning Trump’s involvement with Ukrainians came as a surprise to many. The offer was made to Rep. Devin Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee. Since the whistleblower will be answering the questions directly, republicans will not need to go through the committee’s chairman Rep. Adam Schiff to ask questions or get a reply.
Mark Zaid, who is a well-known critic of Donald Trump said that there was “no substantive response” when he was asked if Republicans had reached out to him. Reacting to Zaid’s offer, a GOP source who is part of the impeachment inquiry said that it just might not be good enough. “I’m not sure we will accept scripted interrogatories……. We will prefer a detailed account of his actions and how this was masterminded.”
According to Zaid, his client will not be answering queries seeking “identifying info” about the whistleblower. This is in a bid to protect the whistleblower’s identity from being unmasked by Trump and his GOP. Since the whistleblower brought the public’s attention to Trump’s dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump has repeatedly asked that the identity of the whistleblower be revealed. In a tweet on Sunday, the President said that the person “must come forward.” He claims that the whistleblower’s accounting of events was wrong.