Up until the democrats conveniently changed the whistle blower law to include those with second hand knowledge (that in itself is highly suspect and squeaks of the state of another democratic set up to remove a legitimately elected president) a whistle blower had to actually be employed by those he was whistle blowing on.  Someone coming forward with second hand information of a he said she said scenario in itself is not as reliable as a first hand eye witness account.  That's why they brought in Vindman, to add validity to a second hand account.  That sort of backfired when:

> During Tuesday’s deposition of NSC official Alexander Vindman, Democrats >shut down a line of inquiry by Republicans because they said it risked revealing >the identity of the whistleblower. Republicans wanted to know with whom >Vindman spoke within the administration about his concerns regarding >Trump’s call to Ukraine. But Schiff instructed the witness not to answer the >questions, which reportedly sparked a shouting match between Democrats >and Republicans.

It was during this purported questioning that Harvey passed notes...but that does not mean he literally gave out the whistle blowers name, he passed lines of notes for questioning....the question being was the one addressed above, which was a totally legit question as it's against the law to pass along information of a presidents telephone calls.  So by objecting that if he answers the question pretty much will lead to the identify of the whistle blower as they claimed pretty much is a wrap that this guy Vindman passed along confidential information to someone he wasn't suppose to.  That does not nor does it mean Harvey gave out anything other than a line of questioning that focused on a simple question, that question being did you talk to anyone about the presidents telephone call.  

So what if it would have put the whistle blowers name down in what would eventually become a public document, it wouldn't have mattered one iota if what Rep. Lewis Gohmert said last week comes to fruition as being the whistle blower, which was:

>Rep. Louis Gohmert: Ciaramella was “supposed to be a point person on >Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt, and he didn’t blow any whistles on their corruption." AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin In an open >House Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R->Texas) seemingly out of left field asked a witness about “Eric Ciaramella of the >Obama National Security Council,” in what the Washington press corps took as >a bid to out the whistleblower. He later told a Dallas radio station he knew the >whistleblower’s name. “A lot of us in Washington know who it is,” Gohmert >said, adding he’s a “very staunch Democrat” who was “supposed to be a point >person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt, and he >didn’t blow any whistles on their corruption."
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3790258/posts

From another article it is stated plenty of new organizations knew who he was also:

>Influential conservatives have claimed that the whistleblower’s identity is no >secret at all. On Oct. 24, Fred Fleitz, formerly chief of staff of the NSC under >John >Bolton and a CIA official before that, claimed on CNN that OANN, >Breitbart, the >House Intelligence Committee, CNN and the White House “has >the name.” >Fleitz asserted as well that “the president knows who he is.” Fleitz >cited no >source for his information.  

How in the world could a future release of public documents makes Harvey guilty of being the whistleblower is beyond me given the many numerous people who knew and what Gehmert said last week.  That's as crazy as you saying, which you did if you again like I stated last night listened to yourself talk for a minute, "I've got a secret that I don't got"....when you said "I am not naming the whistle blower, eventually we may know who the whistle blower is"  so which is it junior?

If Paul Sperry is right in the linked article above a whole lot of people should be reading it.  As if this is the legit whistle blower it's more than concerning he was let go for leaking information out of the white house.  The man obviously has no regard for integrity and rules, he's playing by his own rule book which comes as no surprise for a democrat.  He falls right in line with the sham impeachment, Bidens quid pro quo, and Vindman's leaking to him and last but not least we forget the quote in the article where :  Ciaramella was “supposed to be a point person on >Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt, and he didn’t blow any whistles on their corruption." 

So you see the only one's able to get away with high crimes and misdemeanors here is the democrats and this is what this circus unfolding is all about...covering up their crimes.