Donald Trump had spent days attacking the whistleblower whose complaint helped ignite an impeachment inquiry into his dealings with Ukraine.
One of the president's central lines of attack was that the original whistleblower did not personally witness everything described in the complaint.
Then, on October 6, 2019, that defense suffered a significant complication.
Attorneys representing the original whistleblower revealed that they were also representing a second intelligence-community official—one they said possessed firsthand knowledge supporting portions of the original allegations.
And there might be more.
Attorney Andrew Bakaj announced that his legal team represented “multiple whistleblowers” connected to the underlying disclosure.
The Ukraine controversy was no longer centered on the account of a single anonymous government employee.
A Second Official Comes Forward
Attorney Mark Zaid confirmed on October 6 that the second whistleblower was also a member of the U.S. intelligence community.
Unlike the original whistleblower, whose complaint incorporated information provided by several government officials, the second individual possessed firsthand knowledge relevant to some of the allegations.
The second whistleblower had also spoken with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
The development was important because Trump and his allies had repeatedly attacked the original complaint as based on secondhand information.
That criticism was misleading in one important respect: whistleblowers did not need firsthand knowledge to make a protected disclosure.
But politically, Trump's supporters had made the distinction central to their defense.
Now there was another government official who, according to the whistleblowers' attorney, could corroborate portions of the original account from direct knowledge.
The Complaint That Started an Impeachment Inquiry
The controversy originated with Trump's July 25 telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
During the call, Trump asked Zelensky to investigate matters involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
Joe Biden was then seeking the Democratic nomination for president and was a potential opponent of Trump in the 2020 election.
The original whistleblower's August complaint alleged that Trump had used the power of his office to seek interference from a foreign country in the upcoming presidential election.
The complaint also raised concerns about how records of the Zelensky call had been handled inside the White House.
By late September, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had announced a formal impeachment inquiry.
The White House subsequently released a memorandum summarizing the July 25 call.
Rather than ending the controversy, the release confirmed important elements at the center of the dispute—including that Trump had asked Zelensky to pursue investigations involving the Bidens.
Trump insisted throughout the controversy that he had done nothing wrong and repeatedly characterized his conversation with Zelensky as appropriate.
Trump's Hearsay Defense Takes a Hit
Before October 6, Trump and his allies repeatedly emphasized that the original whistleblower had relied partly upon information obtained from other government officials.
They portrayed that as a fatal weakness.
But the emergence of a second intelligence official presented a problem with that argument.
According to Zaid, this person possessed firsthand knowledge supporting information provided by the original whistleblower.
It also underscored something potentially more significant.
The original complaint itself described information obtained from multiple U.S. officials.
Now additional people were beginning to emerge through protected whistleblower channels.
Bakaj announced that his team represented “multiple whistleblowers” connected to the original August disclosure, although he did not say exactly how many or provide details about each person's information.
The possibility that several government officials independently had concerns about the president's conduct made it increasingly difficult to portray the controversy as simply the creation of one disgruntled anonymous employee.
Trump Attacks the Whistleblowers
Trump responded by continuing his attacks.
Rather than focusing only on the substance of the allegations, the president repeatedly questioned the whistleblowers' motives and political loyalties.
After news of the second whistleblower emerged, Trump attacked the fact that the two officials shared legal representation and again characterized the impeachment investigation as a partisan “witch hunt.”
The White House offered another defense.
Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham argued that the number of whistleblowers didn't matter because the administration had already released its memorandum of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call and maintained that it demonstrated the president had done nothing wrong.
But the impeachment investigation was increasingly about more than the words spoken during a single telephone conversation.
Investigators were examining the broader effort to persuade Ukraine to announce investigations involving the Bidens, the role of Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, the activities of American diplomats and officials, and questions surrounding congressionally approved military assistance to Ukraine.
The Inquiry Was Expanding
October 6 therefore marked an important moment in Trump's first impeachment saga.
What began as one whistleblower complaint was expanding into a much broader congressional investigation.
More witnesses would soon testify.
Diplomats and administration officials would provide Congress with firsthand accounts of what had occurred behind the scenes.
Documents and testimony would increasingly shift the impeachment inquiry away from reliance upon the original anonymous whistleblower.
The whistleblower had sounded the alarm.
Others would provide the evidence.
October 6, 2019
On this day in 2019, Americans learned that the person whose complaint helped launch the Ukraine impeachment inquiry was not the only government official raising concerns.
A second intelligence official had come forward.
This person had firsthand knowledge supporting portions of the original whistleblower's account.
Attorneys said they represented multiple whistleblowers connected with the matter.
And a defense repeatedly used by Trump and his supporters—that the controversy could be dismissed because the original whistleblower lacked firsthand knowledge of some events—became substantially less persuasive as an explanation for why the allegations should simply be disregarded.
The Ukraine affair was no longer merely about what one anonymous official had reported.
It was becoming an investigation built upon documents, the president's own released call memorandum and the accounts of numerous government officials.
Less than three months later, the House of Representatives would impeach Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
October 6 was one of the days when the investigation took another significant step in that direction.