ABC has some “BREAKING” news that for us … the attorney representing the initial whistleblower says he is now representing a second whistleblower “with first-hand knowledge of events.”

Quick question, why do we need a second whistleblower with “first-hand knowledge of events” when we already have a transcript?

So now we are assembling a panel of whistleblowers to tell us what’s on a transcript that has already been released?

Sounds about right.



Oh, FFS: Now there’s a second Ukraine whistleblower who might come forward?