Washington Gas Letter Of Intent: Fill & Download for Free

They didn’t.Ideas about an airplane, and experimental prototypes had been floating around the world in the West for about 30 years.But Wilbur Wright did take a deep interest in flying, as a result of remaining at home when, playing hockey on a frozen lake beside the Dayton Soldiers’ Home, Wilbur was smashed in the face with a stick, knocking out most of his upper front teeth.For weeks he suffered excruciating pain in his face and jaw, then had to be fitted with false teeth. Serious digestive complications followed, then heart palpitations and spells of depression that seemed only to lengthen. Everybody grew more and more concerned. All talk of Yale ended.His ailing mother did what she could to care for him, but as her own health kept steadily deteriorating, he began looking after her.Wilbur remained a recluse, more or less homebound, for fully three years—three years when he began reading as never before.…………………….In the late summer of 1896, twenty-five-year-old Orville was struck by the dreaded typhoid. It was a month before Orville could sit up in bed, another two weeks before he could get out of bed, and during this time Wilbur had begun reading about the German glider enthusiast Otto Lilienthal who had recently been killed in an accident. Much that he read he read aloud to Orville.A manufacturer of small steam engines and a mining engineer by training, Lilienthal had started gliding as early as 1869, and from the start he had been joined in his aviation experiments by a younger brother, which could only have given Wilbur and Orville a feeling of something in common.He took his lessons from the birds, Lilienthal said, and he saw, as many “prominent investigators” had not, that the secret of “the art of flight” was to be found in the arched or vaulted wings of birds, by which they could ride the wind. He had no use for gas balloons as a means of flight, as they had nothing in common with the birds. “What we are seeking is the means of free motion in the air, in any direction.” And only by flying oneself could one achieve “proper insight” into all that was involved. To do this, one had to be on “intimate” terms with the wind.Over the years Lilienthal had designed and built more than a dozen different gliders………………As pilot, he would hang by his arms below the wings. The setting for Lilienthal’s flights, Wilbur learned, was a range of barren hills known as the Rhinow Mountains, a two-hour train ride north of Berlin.…………………………Lilienthal also had himself repeatedly photographed in action, something no gliding enthusiast had yet done. With advances in the technology of photography, the dry-plate camera had come into use. Reproduction of photographic half-tones had also been achieved, and thus unprecedented photographs of the daring “Flying Man” and his gliders appeared the world over. In the United States, his fame was greater than anywhere. A long article in the popular McClure’s Magazine, illustrated with seven photographs of Lilienthal in flight, reached the largest audience of all.On August 9, 1896, flying a favorite “No. 11” glider, he crashed again, falling from an altitude of fifty feet. He died of a broken spine in a Berlin hospital the following day at age forty-eight.“It must not remain our desire only to acquire the art of the bird,” Lilienthal had written. “It is our duty not to rest until we have attained a perfect scientific conception of the problem of flight.”(But his most famous quote handed down to the ages was “Sacrifices must be made.”)News of Lilienthal’s death, Wilbur later wrote, aroused in him as nothing had an interest that had remained passive from childhood. His reading on the flight of birds became intense. On the shelves of the family library was an English translation of a famous illustrated volume, Animal Mechanism, written by a French physician, Etienne-Jules Marey, more than thirty years before. Wilbur had already read it. Now he read it anew.Marey’s serious, largely technical study led Wilbur to read more of the kind, including such treatises as J. Bell Pettigrew’s Animal Locomotion; or Walking, Swimming, and Flying, with a Dissertation on Aeronautics.For Wilbur the book was exactly what was needed.Wilbur was to draw upon and quote Pettigrew for years. Like the inspiring lectures of a great professor, the book had opened his eyes and started him thinking in ways he never had.Once fully recovered from his illness, Orville proceeded with the same reading list.On Tuesday, May 30, 1899—Decoration Day, as it was then known—Wilbur seated himself at Katharine’s small, slant-top desk in the front parlor to write what would be one of the most important letters of his life. Indeed, given all it set in motion, it was one of the most important letters in history. Addressed to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, it filled not quite two sheets of the Wright Cycle Company’s pale blue stationery, all set down in Wilbur’s notably clear hand.“I have been interested in the problem of mechanical and human flight ever since as a boy I constructed a number of bats of various sizes after the style of Cayley’s and Pénaud’s machines,” he began.(Sir George Cayley, a brilliant English baronet and aeronautical pioneer, had also devised a toy helicopter very like the one by Alphonse Pénaud given to the brothers by Bishop Wright.)“My observations since have only convinced me more firmly that human flight is possible and practicable. . . .“I am about to begin a systematic study of the subject in preparation for practical work to which I expect to devote what time I can spare from my regular business. I wish to obtain such papers as the Smithsonian Institution has published on this subject, and if possible a list of other works in print in the English language.Lest there be any doubts about him or the seriousness of his intentions, he added: “I am an enthusiast, but not a crank in the sense that I have some pet theories as to the proper construction of a flying machine.”From the list of books provided by the assistant secretary of the Smithsonian, Richard Rathbun, and with a generous supply of Smithsonian pamphlets on aviation forwarded to him, he and Orville both began studying in earnest.Among the material the Smithsonian provided him was an English translation of a book titled L’Empire de l’Air, published in Paris in 1881. It had been written by a French farmer, poet, and student of flight, Louis Pierre Mouillard. Nothing Wilbur had yet read so affected him. He would long consider it “one of the most remarkable pieces of aeronautical literature” ever published. For Wilbur, flight had become a “cause,” and Mouillard, one of the great “missionaries” of the cause, “like a prophet crying in the wilderness, exhorting the world to repent of its unbelief in the possibility of human flight.”For Wilbur and Orville the dream had taken hold.McCullough, David. The Wright BrothersAnd that is how it all began…..

Because… there is no other option… If you want to live, you have to fight…I think this answer will be sharp, but I just want to make a simple sharing. If I have offended any friends, I apologize here first.I. The United States is a very powerful country, so the US government has the ability to bully any countryWith the strength of the United States today, as long as it makes up its mind, the United States has the ability to destroy most countries in the world.II. If you are afraid, what are the consequences?A. Wisdom in Chinese historyWhen you are bullied, tolerance is a way to avoid the intensification of problems. However, if you are patient for a long time, it is definitely not a solution to the problem, and it will only make you bullied even worse.This problem has appeared in Chinese history for a long time. So the Chinese know exactly what to do.In 221 BC, the State of Qin destroyed the six countries and unified China, establishing the first unified empire of China. Qin was not the most powerful at first, but a savage tribe located in the border. However, after several generations of efforts, Qin became the most powerful country at that time, and one country eliminated six countries. Why Qin is so powerful, so the history of Qin has always been the focus of ancient Chinese historians. There is a very interesting ancient article called "Six-nation Theory", which is about this problem.There is a passage in "The Theory of Six Countries",which says that the land obtained by Qin State through bribery from the six countries is one hundred times more than that obtained through war. The land lost by the governors of the six countries because of bribing the state of Qin is 100 times more than that lost by defeat.Facing the powerful Qin State, the governors of the six countries ceded their cities in exchange for short-term peace. For example, five cities will be ceded today and ten cities will be ceded tomorrow, which is the only way to have a good night's sleep. But the next morning, the governors of the six countries discovered that the army of Qin had reached the border again. The land of the six countries is limited, but the greed of the violent Qin State is unlimited. The more land the six countries give to Qin, the more aggression it will make. Therefore, there was no need for war, and the six countries finally fell to total collapse. The ancients said: "Serving Qin with the land is like holding firewood to put out the fire. If the firewood is not burned out, the fire will not go out."Yan and Zhao were the last countries to perish because they insisted on not ceding their own land. Resolutely do not bribe the state of Qin. Therefore, although Yan is a small country, it finally perished, which is the effect of fighting against Qin.If the governors of the six countries bribe the land of Qin State to the competent people, treat the competent people with the heart of serving Qin State, and work together to deal with Qin State, then I am afraid that Qin State cannot destroy the six countries.This article is a Chinese middle school text. There is a wealth of wisdom in the article. The article tells us several noteworthy aspects:First, compromise cannot lead to real peace.Second, even small countries still have hope of survival in the face of powerful countries through fighting.Third, when facing a powerful enemy, unity is the best way.B. China's historical experienceFrom 1840 to 1949, it was the most humiliating period in Chinese history. In the past 100 years, the invasions and losses suffered by China are shocking.When facing the powerful western countries, weak China had to cede land and pay compensation in order to keep its political power. China has lost at least 1.54 million square kilometers of land, which is twice the total area of France and Germany. The compensation paid by China is even more difficult to calculate. During this period, the number of people who died due to war and famine in China was at least close to 50 million.In the end, China lived peacefully not because the West was satisfied with China's reparations and land and stopped its aggression, but because the Chinese made unremitting resistance.China now has a very strong understanding that peace is not a gift, and peace needs to be fought for with life. Equality is not a gift. Equality needs to be fought for with life. Fear will bring more fierce aggression, not peace. Even peace is short and fragile.C. How does the US government treat countries that are afraid of the United States?Every nation is founded with blood. This is especially true in the United States. The United States is a country that advocates force. For example, after Thanksgiving, how white people treat Native Americans. Like how white people treat black people. For example, after the founding of the United States, the westward movement forced Native Americans to lose their original land. There are violent factors behind all this.First. How did the US government treat South Korea?On December 4, 1997, South Korea was so frightened by the financial attack launched by the United States that it had to sign the loan terms prepared unilaterally by the United States at Hilton Seoul Hotel. The United States harvested all the economic development achievements of South Korea in one day. South Korea must unconditionally accept the financial terms of the United States, and then the United States agreed to invest a total of 57 billion dollars into South Korea in batches. According to the provisions, all Korean enterprises must repay their debts after borrowing money. Then Korean enterprises can borrow money again, that is, the borrowed money can not be used for the production and operation of enterprises, but can repay debts. After the above clauses, because the Korean government is afraid of the United States, almost all large and medium-sized enterprises in Korea-Samsung, Daewoo, Hyundai, etc.-are controlled by the United States, which is a serious consequence of being afraid of the United States.If I have offended my Korean friends, I apologize here. Chinese people have been paying great attention to South Korea. There are many places in Korea worth learning from in China. Korean movies have performed very well in recent years. Excellent Korean directors and screenwriters can always make many thought-provoking films. Among them, films about Korean politics are very surprising. Korean films dare to discuss their own political issues, but to be honest, I don't seem to find many films about US-South Korea relations. Why is this? As far as I know, Koreans are contradictory and struggling in their hearts, and their wisdom and diligence can definitely make Korea an independent, powerful, and prosperous country. However, facing pressure from the North and the United States, it is very difficult for South Korea to find its own position. As far as I know about Korea, Koreans are definitely very thoughtful people. I think Koreans must have their own ideas on this issue.Second. How did the US government treat Japan?Because of the rapid development of Japan's economy in the 1980s and 1990s, Akio Morita, the founder of Sony Corporation, the most powerful entrepreneur in Japan, wrote a book "Japan can say no" in 1989 with the intention of encouraging Japanese to buy American real estate and companies. At this time, even the American giant IBM was ready to sell in the market, but this behavior aroused the vigilance of the US government. As a result, the United States, through political repression, forced Japanese enterprises not to develop core technologies of information networks, such as chips, operating systems, and root servers, and not to operate a large number of electronic client products, such as mobile phones and computers. Because Japan is afraid of the United States, and because Japan itself is firmly controlled by the United States, it has to sign a national contract unilaterally issued by the United States, the Plaza Accord. Later, we will know that Japan has ushered in the "lost 20 years." "But there is something to add here. The reason for this result is not simply because of the United States. Japan pays too much attention to finance and real estate but gives up its attention to the industry, which is also an important reason for this consequence.If I have offended my Japanese friends, I apologize here. Chinese people's feelings for Japan are complicated, but it is undeniable that there is admiration in Chinese people's feelings for Japan. Japan has done great harm to China, but Japan has turned Japan into a powerful country by virtue of its own wisdom and work. There have been many heroes in Japan, such as Nobuhiro Oda, Takeda Shingen, Chishin Sugiyama, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Tougou Heihachirou, and so on. The Japanese Bushido spirit was once a powerful spiritual belief in Japan. In the face of the past, perhaps today's Japanese will also fall into confusion and struggle.Third. How did the US government treat the big country just like Russia?Here, we might as well review history. Russia was very friendly to the United States during Yeltsin's time. Why was Putin not so friendly? Does Putin need an enemy to unite the people at home? Or Putin has to hostile?Russia in Yeltsin's time was no longer able to compete with the United States, but it did not make the United States give up squeezing Russia's strategic space and attacking Russia in all aspects. Why? Because even Russia in Yeltsin's time was still a big country that could not be ignored, at least, its military strength still had the ability to threaten the United States. For example, NATO bombed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the three Baltic countries joined NATO, and Georgia, all of which happened within the influence of Russia. It is precise because of this that Russia has lost trust in the West, and the West is willing to accept Russia if it wants to join the West. The West is only willing to accept a weak, divided, civil strife and militarily weak Russia.Forth. How did the US government treat China?China is also a big country, at least in terms of land area. The United States also adopted a similar method to Russia in dealing with China-killing. Once the United States had a good relationship with China, it was because Nixon had to make a choice against the Soviet Union. After the end of the Cold War, the United States will attack Russia, Japan, and Europe again, and China is the weakest in front of these three forces, so the United States will not deal with China for the time being. Today, if China is afraid of the United States again, the consequence can't be Japan's treatment, even South Korea's treatment, and the result can only be the same as the Middle East, or even more serious than today's the Middle East.Based on Chinese history and international history, do you think there is another way for China and Chinese people? Fear is useless, if we fear the United States can bring the peace to us. I think most Chinese people will be happy to do that. Unfortunately, the US government will not do that.III. Therefore, "not afraid" of the United States is the only way to liveHistorical events exist objectively, but different people who study history will have different views. I don't know what people in other countries think, but at least Chinese people think that you will have no chance to survive if they are afraid of America. If you are not afraid of America, there will be a chance.At the same time, the internal problems of the United States are also serious.The political system of the US government is a bipartisan election system, which can only represent the interests of half of the people in the most time. The form of democracy is important, but what is more important is that everyone should do things together after democracy. If the country has money, it can maintain peace. What if it has no money? At the same time, the national policy is unstable, and all the policies of the Obama administration have been revised or abolished by the Trump administration, which leads to the discontinuity of the national policy.On August 28th, people took part in anti-racial discrimination and violent law enforcement demonstrations near Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC.US President Trump delivered a speech on the last day of the Republican National Convention, formally accepting the nomination as a candidate for the Republican presidential election, and will compete with Democratic candidate Biden for the White House in November.Clinton's party is impeaching Trump, and Trump immediately launched an investigation into the corruption case between Hillary Clinton's mail door and his rival Biden in Ukraine. Both parties in the United States developed to beat each other to death. I don't know what Americans will think.Will Americans be worried about the chaos in the Middle East? Now it's Europeans who are paying the bill, so what about the future?Displaced Syrian children who fled from Deir Ezzor and Raqqa cities seen in the Qana refugee camp in southern Hassakeh province on October 11, 2017. Youssef Rabih Youssef / EPAFrance and Germany disagree with Trump administration on many issues. What does this mean?A Russian Gas Pipeline Increases Tension Between the U.S. and EuropeLooking at the examples of many countries, basically, all big countries were destroyed by internal struggles. The undefeated person who persists for a long time wins, that is, if he is not defeated, he will be the last winner.Fear is just a four letters word. If you want to live with dignity, you have to fight. And there are no other options.Screenshot from the movieWreck-It Ralph

Like most everyone else, I can’t help but wonder what good the Republicans think those witnesses would do for the president and themselves. The same four individuals are suggested over and over again, for the same purposes every time. They are:A. Hunter Biden.B. Joe Biden.C. Adam Schiff.D. The whistleblower.From the context in which Republicans have mentioned them in the public hearings, we have a pretty good idea of what questions they want to ask. But we also have a pretty good idea how the witnesses are likely to answer, and all but the whistleblower should be positively eager to testify, even if it means the Republicans end up airing their grievances, to their faces, at length. Which is to say: I will be speculating about what the witnesses would say if they were summoned, and this is going to get long. If you want a direct answer to the question, you may skip to part D.A. Hunter Biden. One handy, if not completely objective, source of publicly available facts about him is Jim Geraghty, Hunter Biden: The Most Comprehensive Timeline, National Review, 30 Sept. 2019.Q Please explain your relationship with the Ukraine-based natural gas production company called Burisma.A I was a member of the board of directors.Q When were you a member of the board?A From April 2014 until earlier this year.Q Was this not during the time your father was vice president?A The early part of it was, yesQ You are aware that this presents at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.A We know this now, yes.Q You should have realized it earlier. Your hiring was criticized in the press at the time for this very reason. With unanimous consent, I would enter into the record an example of this commentary: Adam Taylor, Hunter Biden’s new job at a Ukrainian gas company is a problem for U. S. soft power, Washington Post, 14 May 2014.I actually don’t know exactly how the exhibition of evidence would work in the Senate with Chief Justice Roberts presiding, but I don’t imagine that he would object. But this is not a question, and Biden and his counsel need only say so, and that would probably end this line of questioning.Q What was your compensation?I cannot anticipate this answer, because it’s likely to be complicated. It may begin with a base figure around $50,000 per month, as National Review reports, but perhaps with allowances that bring the total closer to $83,000 per month, as Republicans have been claiming recently.Either way, it’s more for one month than many Americans make in a year, and Republicans have been milking it for maximum populist resentment. But their games with the exact number make it hard to compare with figures that are typical for a corporate board director anywhere.Q What was your prior experience in the industry?A I had experience as a lawyer and executive, but nothing specific to the oil and gas industry.Q Is it typical for members to be appointed to a corporate board without experience in the industry?A I don’t know.Q Why do you think you were recruited to work there?A I can’t speak to their reasons. You should ask them.Q Was it not because they expected access to the sitting vice president of the United States?A I cannot speak to that.There is no disputing the facts here. Biden has little choice but to say “true” or “I don’t know” to every question and get it over with. The Republicans can claim impropriety all they want, and everyone realizes how it looks now; but this is not the time or place to adjudicate the claim. As much as Republicans would love it to be so, their political opponents are not on trial.B. Joe Biden. With him, the nub of the matter is his effort to persuade then Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to remove top prosecutor Viktor Shokin in 2015, and his use of financial pressure to achieve it. Biden’s extemporaneous account before the Council on Foreign Relations was dramatic but confusing, and the financial pressure didn’t work alone or as fast as Biden represented. (For what it’s worth, this tendency to muddle himself on the fly is one reason I don’t support his candidacy for president.) For the facts, Glenn Kessler, Correcting a media error: Biden’s Ukraine showdown was in December 2015, Washington Post, 2 Oct. 2019, is essential.Q Your last official position was vice president of the United States.A Correct.Q When did you leave this office?A January 20, 2017.Q Were you involved in the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts with Ukraine?A Yes, as were lots of others within the White House and the State Department.Q How many conversations did you have with Ukrainian administration officials during the term?A Oh, there must have been at least a few dozen.Q Your son is Hunter Biden.A Yes.Q He was a member of the board of directors of Burisma at the time?A Yes.Q When did your son begin working for Burisma?A April 2014.Q Did you ever discuss executive decisions with him?A No.Q Why not?A He’s an adult. He makes his own decisions about his career. I don’t get involved. I told him I wouldn’t get involved when he took the position. And I never did.Q Do you know that having your son on the board of directors in a company based in a notoriously corrupt foreign country, while you were heavily involved in diplomatic relations with the same country, presents the appearance of a conflict of interest?A It could.Q We heard in the House Intelligence Committee that George Kent was concerned enough about such an appearance to cancel the embassy’s cosponsorship with Burisma in a youth contest in Ukraine [Diplomats Bill Taylor and George Kent Impeachment Inquiry Testimony, C-SPAN, 13 Nov. 2019, at 3:04:44–3:05:45].A I wasn’t involved in that decision, and I can’t speak to it.Q Did the company come under investigation for corrupt practices while your son was working there?A Well, I’ve heard reporting that there was, and I believe it’s correct.Q Do you know when it began?A No, but it was reported in the American press starting at least in December 2015.Q Near the time of your visit to Ukraine?A Yes.Q Who was in charge of the investigation?A Viktor Shokin, the Prosecutor General.Q Did you not ask the president of Ukraine to remove him, and threaten to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if he didn’t?A Yes.Q Does this not rise to quid pro quo?A Possibly.The logical follow-up to this last line of questioning is to ask why Biden did something that arguably rises to quid pro quo. The answer, of course, is that he did so in the pursuit of a legitimate anti-corruption interest. Shokin was known for dragging his feet on corruption investigations. Furthermore, he was even more notorious among our European Union allies, and they had been pushing for his removal, too. A better investigator on Burisma might have exposed Hunter Biden to more scrutiny, not less. The implication that Joe Biden’s move against Shokin was motivated by an attempt to protect his son is completely backward.Democrats have to admit that some proposed exchanges between foreign countries are legitimate. But the comparison is hazardous for the Republicans, because Trump’s effort hardly qualifies as a legitimate anti-corruption interest. Not if it dwells on Joe Biden’s eligibility as a presidential candidate in 2020, nor on relitigating the 2016 election via the CrowdStrike investigation of the DNC server. CrowdStrike’s involvement itself began with Trump’s own encouragement of Russian interference. The Russians immediately hacked the server, and CrowdStrike ultimately was commissioned by the FBI to perform technical analysis on the server.The major concerns that come through on Trump’s end of that conversation all relate to domestic U. S. politics, not clean Ukrainian government. By contrast, Biden’s record is distinguished by an absence of confounding personal motives. He comes out cleaner than Trump, as experienced, serious-minded politicians tend to do, and you can’t take that away.C. Adam Schiff. As chair of the House Intelligence Committee, he has generated unexpected controversy. We may expect three related issues to preoccupy the Republicans.Q Have you read the official transcript of the conversation between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine?A Yes.Q When did you first read the transcript?A Immediately after it was released to the public, on September 25, 2019.Q We would like you to read a statement you made in a public hearing of your committee on the following day, September 26. Would you please read what you said?A “We’ve been very good to your country, very good, no other country has done as much as we have, but you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though, and I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I’m going to put you in touch with the Attorney General of the United States, my Attorney General, Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him, trust me. You know what I’m asking, and so I’m only going to say this a few more times in a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.” [Acting Director of National Intelligence Maguire Testifies on Whistleblower Complaint, C-SPAN, 26 Sept. 2019, at 07:38–08:49]Q Was this an exact quote from the transcript?A No, but it wasn’t meant to be. It conveyed my interpretation of what Trump had told Zelensky. And I was very clear about that before the part we’ve just quoted, and in statements to the press after the hearing,Q Don’t you think it was wrong to misstate the president’s words in a public hearing?A I did not misstate the president’s words.Q But you did mischaracterize the president’s intent. This was not a pressure campaign.A The president’s intent is not for me to judge for the purpose of convicting and removing him from office, and I am entitled to use my own words in official proceedings of the House.Schiff’s constitutional warrant for saying something like this last would be in Article I, Section 6: “The Senators and Representatives … shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place” (The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription, National Archives, last updated 19 Nov. 2019).Q Did you have any knowledge of the transcript’s contents before then?A My knowledge was very limited.Q How so?A I had only heard that a whistleblower had reported concerns to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. I couldn’t connect it to the July 25 phone call until the complaint was made public.Q How did you first learn of the complaint?A The whistleblower met with the staff of the House Intelligence Committee sometime in August or September, 2019.Q Can you tell us what the whistleblower stated at this time?A I can only tell you what the staff reported to me, which they considered within the limits prescribed by the Whistleblower Protection Act. I was told that it would be a privileged complaint, likely to involve personal acts of the president relating to foreign policy. I was also told that he planned to report it anonymously to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.Q Why do you think he went to your committee staff?A I can only answer based on what I’ve heard from media reports. He had filed an anonymous complaint with counsel in his own agency, but based on internal discussions of the matter, he thought it unlikely to result in meaningful oversight. So he decided to report to the next higher oversight body, and that was the ICIG. He approached the Intelligence Committee staff because he wanted guidance, and he thought that Congressional oversight was likely to begin in that committee.Q Did you receive any other information on the substance of the expected complaint?A Not until the complaint was first publicly reported, in mid-September.Q Have you or your representative’s office staff had personal contact with the whistleblower at any time?A No.Q Would you turn over your office’s and the committee’s records relating to the complaint?A No.Q Why not?A That would risk revealing the whistleblower’s identity. He reported through an anonymous process, in order to protect his livelihood and his family. He did so out of concern for the country, and we owe him that privilege.Q This concern with anonymity is rather novel. You appeared on Morning Joe on September 17. Would you repeat what you said on that occasion?A “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to. But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the Inspector General or the Director of National Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.” [Also reported by Glenn Kessler, Schiff’s false claim that his committee had not spoken to the whistleblower, Washington Post, 4 Oct. 2019, from which this text is adapted.]From here, the discussion is likely to proceed along two tracks. One concerns whether the whistleblower is entitled to anonymity as a matter of law. This is likely to provoke disagreement, with Schiff saying yes and Republican senators saying no. The other discussion is likely to concern why Schiff had proposed that the whistleblower make some statement of the facts on September 17. Recently, leading Democrats’ answer to questions like this has been that the facts are much better attested by other witness testimony, and the whistleblower’s testimony is both derivative and redundant. Schiff likely would repeat that argument before the Senate, but the most widely reported version of it may be George Conway’s.Someone calls 911 because they hear shots down the street at the bank. The cops show up at the bank, and, sure enough, it’s been robbed, and there are numerous witnesses there who saw the crime. The suspects confess. Normally, at this point, no one cares about who called 911. https://t.co/n9DrXiB9Qm— George Conway (@gtconway3d) October 15, 2019D. The whistleblower. This is the only witness I would expect to challenge a subpoena. The publicly known information about him (yes, him) is reported mainly in Julian E. Barnes, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman, and Katie Benner, White House Knew of Whistle-Blower’s Soon After Trump’s Call With Ukraine Leader, New York Times, 26 Sept.–26 Nov. 2019. He reportedly is a CIA officer, although his lawyers refused to confirm even that detail. This is the source from which I would expect Schiff to learn almost everything about the timing of the complaint—all, that is, which was not communicated by the committee staff. My speculative characterization of Schiff’s testimony is largely drawn from that story.In fact, the same story quotes another private attorney with relevant experience, Dan Meyer, to suggest that the whistleblower made a mistake by alerting the agency lawyer first. “I always advise whistle-blowers against going to general counsels because the general counsels have to report the matter,” Meyer said. “They are like tuna in a shark tank.” The whistleblower’s first choice of reporting channel probably compromised his anonymity and linked him with the CIA from the beginning.Some reporters took this detail from the Times story, and others from Michael K. Atkinson, Intelligence Community OIG Letter to DNI on Whistleblower Complaint, 26 Aug. 2019 (PDF, via C-SPAN)—especially where Atkinson said that the complaint contained “some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate”—and suggested they fit the profile of one particular CIA analyst. The first to do this was Paul Sperry, The Beltway’s ‘Whistleblower’ Furor Obsesses Over One Name, Real Clear Investigations, 30 Oct. 2019, but it became a pro-Trump staple after Breitbart picked it up and then Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out the Breitbart piece.I won’t repeat the alleged whistleblower’s name here because his involvement has never actually been confirmed. But Republicans have been pleased to take Sperry’s details (omitting the alleged name only as a further token of their scorn for the Democrats’ regard for the whistleblower’s anonymity) and apply them to the whistleblower as if it were confirmed. This is not just a misuse of journalism; it makes a mockery of the whistleblower’s legitimate interest in his anonymity.If the whistleblower refuses to answer a subpoena from the Senate, there are two options. It can either take the subpoenas to court and try to get an order for the whistleblower to comply, or complain about obstruction and leave it at that. This second option is the one that Schiff took with uncooperative fact witnesses. He seems to have been driven to it by the risk in going to court: that the motion might either fail or take more time than the business of impeachment could possibly spare. Some say that Schiff is taking that risk too seriously. I have quoted Kim Wehle in a recent answer (Austin Spencer’s answer to Why don’t Democrats subpoena the people with first hand evidence of his quid pro quo? 4 Dec. 2019). “Even if some House subpoenas end up stuck in litigation for months,” Wehle writes, “the chamber can move forward with impeachment anyway. The result, in short, will be no worse than the status quo” (The House Is Making This Fight Too Easy for Trump, The Atlantic, 2 Dec. 2019). Based on his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last week, Jonathan Turley might be another.By opting not to press such witnesses as Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Ulrich Brechbuhl, Schiff forfeited the chance of asking them questions on penalty of perjury. Senate Republicans have to ask themselves if they are prepared to make a similar sacrifice of credibility on the whistleblower. But even if not, it could take until after January 2021 to get the answer. And if Senate Republicans are anxious enough to stage a vote on the president’s acquittal, they might well decide it’s not worth waiting for answers to their questions for him. Especially if, as I suspect, they are likely to find the answers unsatisfactory.Q Were you in fact biased against President Trump, as the ICIG suggested was possible?A It’s not relevant. According to my oath of office, my duty is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the president has committed acts that weaken our constitutional order, he must not be exempt from scrutiny or sanction.Q Is it true that you worked for the CIA and had working relationships with Joe Biden while he was engaged in leading our diplomatic efforts with Ukraine, as has been reported?A I cannot answer this question, on the basis of maintaining my anonymity for the purposes of the complaint.Q Where did you get the information that you reported to the ICIG?A I cannot extend beyond what I reported in the complaint. My complaint states what I learned in the course of my official duties from multiple official sources. I also may not divulge my sources, at the risk that they, too, might suffer retaliation.