(CNSNews.com) - The whistleblower's name is all over the Internet, but reporters and politicians won't name him publicly until Democrats confirm he's the one.
And that must happen, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the Judiciary Committee chairman, and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the intelligence committee, said in separate interviews on Wednesday.
President Trump, meanwhile, weighed in on troubling tweets by the whistleblower's attorney (see below):
"The whistleblower needs to be named and we need to be able to cross-examine that person for any bias," Graham told Fox News's Martha MacCallum.
Without the whistleblower complaint, we wouldn't be talking about the subject matter right now, right? So, what if the whistleblower was tied to a Democrat? What if the whistleblower was tied to Brennan and people from the Intel community who had been out to destroy the Trump presidency even before he got elected? What if this person came from that world? What if they had a bias?
The whistleblower statute is being abused here. It does not give persons anonymity when it comes to making a claim of wrongdoing. It protects them from being fired. The Constitution trumps the statute. No American, including Donald Trump, should be accused of something based on an anonymous source.
I want to know who the whistleblower is. What ties they have to the Intel community, if any? And were they working with a Democrat? Did they have an agenda like (former CIA Director John) Brennan and (former Director of National Security James) Clapper?
Both parties need to know for sure who the whistleblower is, Rep. Nunes told Fox News's Tucker Carlson:
"It is not okay for only one party to know about the whistle-blower. Furthermore, the Democrats on the committee and their staff who seem to know the whistle-blower, they also won't tell us," Nunes said.
"But what the lawyers tell me is that this would not be admissible in court. You cannot take hearsay from a supposed somebody who we've never met, we just can't take the word of some lawyer and the IG and the Democrats on the committee. This person has to have a name, they have to actually exist for this to be considered real evidence in an investigation."
Nunes said Republicans have no way of assessing the claims the whistle-blower has made if they don't know who he is.
But by withholding the name, Nunes added, Democrats "are telling us exactly what we need to know. And that is that, whoever this whistle-blower is must be an extreme partisan with lots of problems with their story. That's why the whistle-blower is not coming forward."
Nunes said the whistleblower "has got to come and testify whether they like it or not. They're going to come and testify.
"Now if Schiff doesn't let that person, and the Democrats in the House don't let that person come and testify to the House, I guarantee you, if they impeach, that person will have to be called to the Senate. I don't want to put words in Mitch McConnell's mouth but he absolutely should have to."
President Trump on Thursday tweeted about the apparent anti-Trump bias of the whistleblower's attorney, Mark Zaid.
"Based on the information released last night about the Fake Whistleblowers attorney, the Impeachment Hoax should be ended IMMEDIATELY! There is no case, except against the other side!" Trump wrote on Thursday morning.
In a January 30, 2017 tweet, Zaid -- commenting on Trump's firing of Attorney General Sally Yates, wrote: "#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers"
In the second tweet, dated July 1, 2017, Zaid said he "would much rather be in Canada" and "We’ll be great again when @realDonaldTrump leaves.”
Another Twitter user asked Zaid, "Are we really going to be able to get him out?"
"It's very scary," Zaid tweeted back. "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to."