defend frivolous lawsuits brought by supporters of president trump but also to worry about their personal safety and that of their families. i think everyone, myself, you, natasha, who goes out and says things critical of the administration has gotten death threats and they re silly until they re serious, until you get somebody going to comet pizza with a weapon because he believes crazy conspiracy theories. there s a reason we have laws to protect whistleblowers. usually it s just against career retaliation, and these people are taking real risks when they come out here. today i think their fear for personal safety is one they need to take seriously. and i m glad that many media outlets are being cautious about giving out details. natasha, in the a little bit of time we have left, you are our national security correspondent at politico. having read the whistleblower s
service for example can put information out there. it creates the whole atmosphere. so the president is not just the impeachment question i don t think is just a national emergency of how it affects our politics but on a broader level, this could create a crisis in terms of how other countries r perceive us and how we are projecting ourselves susceptible to this kind of blackmail and this information. jason, before i come to you and get your views on the national emergency that we seem to be in since natasha brought it out. senator johnson was on meet the press with chuck todd. i am going to play that right now. i had my third letter into the inspector general asking to just confirm are you
people on board with what the president has been doing which is not only making these phone calls as we learn to others asking for political favors, but also hiding those calls in a secret conserver where the phone calls are not ever placed in previous administrations that didn t have to do with code word, compartmented intelligence matters. so i think that the more we see these whistleblowers coming forward, exactly as rosa said, there may be more. well, i mean, as kelly o reported earlier, she s trying to run down whether multiple whistleblowers means the two that they re remitting or even more. but let me ask you, natasha, do you have any reporting on who these whistleblowers are who they potentially might be? we have some informed guesses. but obviously we re very reluctant to put any kind of information out there. it might have a chilling effect on other whistleblowers and
responsibility to distinguish between when the president only lies which is familiar and everyday. when the president commits a crime on national television which is what we did on thursday. again, when you reach out to china or any foreign government and say i need dirt on my political opponent, that s a federal crime. to the extent there was concerns of what happened in the ukraine because of secondhand information and circumstantial evidence. on thursday we saw him with our own eyes c, will the other membs step up to remove this corrupt man from office? natasha, i should have asked you that china question.
ukraine who just assumed that the president was making this overture demanding, holding a gun to ukraine, i am not going to give you military aide unless you give me the dirt. we have rudy giuliani admitting on national television this was the president intent. on thursday, the president confirms the national television of his intent. he did it with china. way cumulative evidence of this impeachment offense have occ occurred. ej and shawna. what natasha said and what we are talking about here is reality verses mistake believe that the president is trying to push out there. can the press can the press distinguish between the two and seems between the two or the public? i think he s trying very hard here and seeing that on the front page of the papers today that you know if you have a