We all support the Whistleblower protection laws, but ordinarily these witnesses don’,t require anonymity. But even in those rare cases where anonymity is necessary, the defendants eventually have the right to face their accusers. Hopefully these FBI whistleblowers won’t feel so “under threat” as to claim anonymity. But if they do, it seems reasonable for that to be considered, being that both the FBI and the DOJ have been caught red faced with their pants down in the act of screwing average American citizens.

Case in point is the DOJ and the FBI targeting ordinary parents trying to protect their children from radical transgenderism and the propaganda of CRT in grade schools across the country. And then there’s the complicity of the DOJ, FBI, and CIA as well in lying to the FISA court to not only illegally spy on DJT but non-political candidates (everyday citizens) as well. This crime goes all the way back to the Obama administration.

The same should apply to the witnesses to the court for the search warrant for DJT’s FLA residence. The identity and full content of the affidavit for the search warrant should eventually be revealed (the sooner the better), or the DOJ should be required to “show cause” for the necessity to hide the identity of the witness.

I’m not saying there is no justification, I am saying however, that there is enough of a dark shadow underlying the search warrant itself, particularly for a FPOTUS, that higher and more intense scrutiny is warranted. Also, there is a difference between a Confidential Informant and a Whistleblower, but there is also an analogy that can be made. The analogy lies in the fact that they are both making accusations against criminal activity. The distinction is that the commission of a crime has yet to be established in most Whistleblower cases.

Lastly, the label Confidential Informant is used more for situations where criminal activity is the primary purpose of the organization or the defendants, while the label Whistleblower is used for informants that are reporting criminal activity in an organization that is originally established for strictly legal purposes but has developed criminal elements within its organization and still retains part of its original legal function.

NOTE] These comments and descriptions are my own and don’t necessarily conform to the full and complete legal definitions. But I think they are close enough to make my point regarding the need (or not) for anonymity. The difference is that hardened criminals are much more likely to try and “silence” a witness than unprincipled government or corporate employees. That doesn’t mean however, that unprincipled government or corporate employees aren’t dangerous.

Signed: Bubba Mike / The Antebellum Bedouin