The second “whistleblower” complaint is probably a repetition of the same complaint from the same set of eyes with just a different figurehead from the group. By the way, the complaint makes reference to a group that increasingly sounds like a cabal. There’s a term for a form of espionage with the same information being used twice to create the appearance of confirmation. Bottom line, it’s in the toolkit of the intelligence community. And it’s probably operative here.
There’s more to this latest effort to impeach. “Whistleblowing” provides cover for the “whistleblower”. Labeling the person a “whistleblower” shields the identity of the person while also stonewalling efforts to plumb his or her identity for motivations – you know, like the complainant’s possible partisan political aims. Secondly, the non-inquiry inquiry is conducted to prevent a courtroom adversarial setting that would give evidentiary and debate rights to opponents. Keeping the process like a committee hearing, but just labeling it an “impeachment inquiry”, puts great power in the hands of the committee chairman and the Democratic leadership. It’s a tactic that would make Stalin beam with envy.
It’s a two-fer, and nothing but a political flim-flam.
RogerG