Does federal law guarantee the anonymity of the CIA employee whose whistleblower complaint is behind Congress' current impeachment conflagration? The Washington Post says it doesn't and is calling out House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for saying so.

On Wednesday, the newspaper gave Schiff a rating of "three Pinocchios" for his claim that the federal employee in question has a right to anonymity under federal laws regarding the protection of whistleblowers.

To begin, the Post cites multiple quotes from Schiff alleging that the employee has a "statutory right" to keep his identity shielded from public scrutiny. Then, the article looks at the actual laws that deal with situations like this one and determines, "Neither the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA) nor any related statutes have language guaranteeing anonymity for whistleblowers." It also notes that the portion of the law that prevents the inspector general from outing a whistleblower's identity "appears to be the lone statutory restriction on disclosing a whistleblower’s identity, applicable only to the inspector general’s office."

University of Texas School of Law Professor Stephen Vladeck told the newspaper, “Nothing in the ICWPA expressly protects the anonymity of a complainant, or provides sanctions for someone who discloses it."

When in applying the newspaper's "Pinocchio Test," the article says that Schiff's claims were "on the line between Two and Three Pinocchios" but that the case for three was "more compelling."

"Schiff says the whistleblower has a 'statutory right' to anonymity, and it apparently, in Schiff’s understanding, extends to congressional hearings and settings that don’t involve the inspector general," the article concludes. "That’s debatable at best."

Republicans have made the case that the employee behind the complaint needs to testify so that investigators can "fully assess the sources and credibility of the employee." Republicans have also argued that Schiff himself has changed his position on whether or not congressional investigators would hear open testimony from the employee.

Schiff has also publicly claimed that he doesn't know who the employee is, despite his efforts to police the release of his identity. During Tuesday's public impeachment hearings, Schiff stopped both Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Devin Nunes, R-Calif., from questioning witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman about whom he told about the now-infamous July 25 Trump-Ukraine phone call, citing concerns about the employee's identity.

Thursday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin told listeners exactly what happened during the hearing Thursday with Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire regarding the whistleblower's complaint against President Trump.

"Adam Schiff and his staff and other Democrats are orchestrating this entire thing," Levin said. "I'll call [it] the 'Leak and Coup Campaign.' In coordination with the New York Times and the other media outlets — NBC and so forth. Now we know from the New York Times that a CIA operative is the whistleblower. Now what's amazing: We had a hearing today, right? Where was the whistleblower?

"We're having a hearing today on what the whistleblower is said to have written, but we don't have the main witness, so the witness can be scrutinized, and questioned, and cross-examined. Instead, we have Adam Schiff, and the other Schiff-less crowd on the committee, telling we the people how tremendous this whistleblower is! How 'brave' and 'courageous' this whistleblower is! Well who the hell is he or she? How do you know? How he's 'patriotic' or she's 'patriotic!' 'Noble!' 'Righteous!'  'Outstanding!'"

Listen:

Levin connects Schiff to the whistleblower:

"Adam Schiff knows exactly who this whistleblower is, and so does his staff," Levin continued. "Because he's been working with the whistleblower and his lawyer, that's how. ... If you look at the date of the letter that was sent to Richard Burr and Adam Schiff, it's dated August 12, 2019. August 12, 2019. And that's several weeks ago. You'll also notice as Sean Davis, the founder of The Federalist, points out, that many of the news articles cited by the CIA operative — the so-called whistleblower who has firsthand knowledge of nothing — are news articles that were cited by Adam Schiff. And so, as he points out, and he's right, when you look at the phony Russia collusion issue and the FISA matters, the leaks came out of the FBI, and the FBI cited the articles that they were responsible for. Adam Schiff is doing exactly the same thing. Adam Schiff should release his phone records. His staff should release their phone records. I'm accusing them of leaking. Now prove me wrong."

Levin also pointed out that the CIA operative had no role in monitoring the president's phone call, he merely heard there was some concern and began conducting his own investigation. Also, the complaint looks like it's written by a lawyer, with footnotes, caveats, and appendixes, Levin said.

"There was no intelligence violation here," Levin said. "There was no threat to American national security here, despite the self-serving comments of this rogue CIA operative, who had no authority to monitor the phone calls but goes through the back door. The way this presented itself in the media, the way Schiff has been conducting himself throughout and during the course of this hearing, the way this document is written, the fact that a Schumer-Clinton former staffer is his lawyer, the fact that Schumer went to the floor of the Senate the other day, demanding that this complaint be provided to the United States Senate. It's all just a little too cozy. And you heard it here first. ... This is what's going on behind the scenes. If I'm wrong, then Mr. Schiff shouldn't worry about, as the liberals like to say, releasing his phone records for the last 90 days."