With the revelation that a "second whistleblower" has firsthand knowledge of Donald Trump's call to the president of Ukraine and was upset at what he heard on the call, the left-wing legacy media are all a-Twitter.  At this point, the rational observer would have to ask, "Just what can this publicity-seeker reveal that is not already in the transcript of the call?"

We already know from a rational analysis of the transcript and the testimony of special envoy to Ukraine  Kurt Volker that there's no "there" there.  The call was a to congratulate the new president of Ukraine, with a side issue of continuing an ongoing investigation of Ukraine's corrupt former government's involvement in our 2016 election in favor of — drum roll, please — Hillary Clinton.  Coincidentally, Joe Biden is both a central figure in that corruption inquiry and a candidate for the Democrat nomination for president.  Somehow, this last fact is the most important facet of a much larger issue.

When multinational crime is committed, it is routine for multinational investigations to be done.  Diplomatic niceties often involve heads of state making the request for cooperation between their respective investigative bodies.  Since Volodymyr Zelensky had recently assumed office and the investigation has been ongoing, it's natural for President Trump to ask him politely to continue the cooperative effort.  "Do me a favor" is simply one polite way to ask.

We have to note that this investigation is focused on crimes committed in 2016, not opposition research on a 2020 candidate.  Yet the Lefty Loonies are screaming about 2020.  "You can't call up a foreign country to dig up dirt on a presidential candidate!"  Curiously, this is exactly what Hillary Clinton did in 2016, but no one seems interested.  If the Left were to be consistent — other than consistently insane — it would be suppressing the "whistleblower's" testimony.  After all, President Trump is also a presidential candidate in 2020.

Let's go a bit farther.  Recent reports indicate that Nancy Pelosi's son was also in on the Ukrainian gold mine.  Trump's chief irritant, Adam Full-of-Schiff, also looks to have Ukrainian problems.  Are they immune because they are political candidates?  Does investigating wrongdoing by a political personality automatically go off-limits because of the political point of contact?  We should ask the late Vice President Agnew or New Jersey's Senator Menendez that same question.  I'm sure they would have appreciated "political immunity."

As this situation develops, it appears that the prime task of the Democrat Resistance is the obstruction of any exposure of their own malfeasance. This seems to have been as much the motivation for Mueller's feckless probe (hide Hillary's crimes — note that they were within his brief but never addressed) as it is for the current "impeachment inquiry."

The original "whistleblower" reported as true the falsehood that Donald Trump was seeking dirt on Joe Biden.  He falsely claimed that it was an "urgent concern" under a specific statute.  We now know that this "report" should have been deep-sixed because it was hearsay.  But the Intelligence Community inspector general retroactively changed the whistleblower standards to allow thirdhand reporting.  He did this without any direct evidence of the contents of the call.  And he passed it on even though nothing in the report had any relationship to issues within his purview.  In short, he went off the reservation.

Given the detailed rules that exist for inspectors general and whistleblowers, one has to ask what allowed them to think there was any lawful excuse to color outside the lines.  The only rationalization that seems apparent is that they were triggered.  But this was not the usual snowflake-triggering.  Rather, it was something far more insidious.

Swamp creatures have two motivations.  The first is self-preservation.  They want to be in the mix of "big things," and they love getting paid for being there.  The fact that they can flaunt their importance with the occasional tip or leak is part of the attraction.  Next, they have political leanings that they will work to promote, whether the administration they "serve" agrees or not.  The swamp monster is more important than the president!  Who are the people to instruct the government in what it should do and who should do it?

So swamp creatures sit in the dark recesses of government, quietly doing whatever they do on a daily basis to justify their existence.  But when a tasty morsel floats by, they will snap at it like the ambush predators they are.  In the case of the first "whistleblower," he saw an opportunity.  It would harm his enemy and help his own importance.  The fact that virtually every substantive element of the complaint was false was unimportant.

As for the ICIG, a blatant dereliction of duty appeared to serve to increase his own personal influence.  He could completely ignore the statutory requirement that the complaint must involve the management of the Intelligence Community.  He could retroactively change the reporting requirements.  He could further act on rumors without seeing any underlying evidence.  And he could write an analysis, based only on hearsay.  This could then serve as an excuse to begin impeaching the president.  The Left could also ignore the legal opinion of the Department of Justice that clearly identified how far Michael Atkinson had strayed from his proper sandbox.

It's clear that the "whistleblower" and the ICIG were "triggered."  But this was different from the outrage that arises from failure to use the proper imaginary pronoun when addressing  a person who for the moment chooses to identify with some alphabet-soup grievance group.  This was a man-trap set up for the moment Donald Trump used language that could be twisted into some heinous high crime worthy of impeachment.

Now, suddenly, another "whistleblower," supposedly with firsthand information, pops up.  But there's a real problem here.  We already know the exact content of the phone call.  So how can this "whistleblower" provide new information?  To any sentient being, the answer is clear.  He can't.  So what's going on?

The identity of the first complainant has been withheld due to the statutory protection given whistleblowers.  But he openly says his information came from the White House, via someone with firsthand knowledge.  And now we have someone in the White House with "firsthand knowledge."

Something is rotten in Denmark.  This second complainant also gains the anonymity shield from the statute.  But it appears nearly certain to me that this second person is the leaker.  He has committed a felony by leaking, and it's becoming clear that the spotlight might find its way to him.  Ultimately, the first person cannot withhold the identity of his source, since he is not a member of the media.  So the leaker has been triggered.  To find protection.  Maybe the first guy will be able to hide his source due to the whistleblower statute.  Desperate times call for desperate measures.

The facts will come out and supersede this informed speculation, but it's becoming clear that we've found elements of a seditious cabal in the White House that wants to bring Donald Trump down.  Fortunately for us, he's a bare-knuckle street-fighter.  The Left will rue the day it took him on.