The anonymous person whose allegations sparked an impeachment inquiry should not be permitted to remain anonymous, a law expert said on Nov. 6.

Former Defense Attorney Gregg Jarrett believes the Ukraine “whistleblower” acted as a spy for the Democrats and should not be entitled to anonymity.

The Fox News legal analyst could not find any written law passed by a legislative body that allows an “unelected and inferior” federal employee to secretly point the finger at the most superior officer in the U.S. government.

“Nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act is anonymity even mentioned. Nor is it found in presidential policy directive 19, which also provides specific whistleblower protections,” Jarrett said on his website. “To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government.”

The only exception he found was the Inspector General Act of 1978, which prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant. This applies to no one else according to Jarrett.

Whistleblowers can receive certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace, meaning they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired or otherwise penalized, provided they satisfy statutory whistleblower requirements.

“The notion that the Ukraine ‘whistleblower’ is somehow entitled to anonymity was probably first peddled by the Flat Earth Society,” Jarrett said. “It is a myth and demonstrably so.”

Jarrett is particularly concerned the whistleblower story might have been made up, and “unscrupulous” Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) are understandably very keen to conceal the so-called “canard.”

“As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee–which is presiding over the current impeachment ‘witch hunt’–Schiff is determined to conceal his own involvement with the faux ‘whistleblower’ and his subsequent deceit about those machinations,” he said.

In addition to this, he claims the second article of the U.S. Constitution empowers the president to carry out foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, and request information.

Jarrett also revealed whistleblower laws clearly excludes complaints that are based on “differences of opinion concerning public policy matters.”

“So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay information intended to damage him,” he said.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) separately agreed the whistleblower should not be allowed to hide “behind a lawyer” and send “emails” to Congress, especially since this concerns a “partisan” impeachment probe.

“There’s no precedent for this in the history of the United States,” Barrasso told Fox News. “This individual, whoever he or she may be, I think must, in terms of due process, in terms of transparency, make themselves available to Congress, to the president’s team, testify in person, under oath, so people can assess the credibility of the individual, the believability of the individual.”

The senator acknowledged there are laws that protect whistleblowers from reprisal but those protections do not always apply for impeachment of a president.

“Whistleblowers have helped in many ways. Taxpayers saved hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said. “But with regard to impeachment, let us be very clear. This is a partisan impeachment.”