For three years we have been bombarded with news created by anonymous liars

Roger Simon:

As Lee Smith details extremely well in his new book The Plot Against the President, since the election of Donald Trump, the American public has been subject to a non-stop barrage of leaked news, almost all of it completely inaccurate or so far out of context that it might as well be.

In the years leading up to the Mueller report, we were told by a myriad of media outlets and supposedly well-informed politicians that evidence of Trump-Russia collusion was imminent. It never appeared, although journalists from the Washington Post and the New York Times won Pulitzers for proclaiming that very thing based on sources that were—what else—anonymous. These journalists were not reporters, as we know the word, but conduits for leakers in our intelligence agencies and FBI with rusty axes to grind. It was these leakers, Smith points out, who actually deserved the Pulitzer prizes, such as they were. The journalists were just their secretaries.

Now we have before us more accusations from two sources who are again anonymous—the whistleblower, whose name, evidently an open D.C. secret, was revealed a few days ago by Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations but still hasn't had the guts to step forward, and Mr. or Ms. "anonymous," whose book entitled A Warning will be appearing in a few days.

This second "anonymous" is the same "anonymous" whose op-ed, despairing of "chaos" in the Trump administration, appeared under the name—what else again—"anonymous" in the New York Times some time back. Courageous, no? A real muckraker... Oh, wait. The muckrakers—Upton Sinclair, Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell—wrote under their own names.

Lo and behold, the Justice Department is not amused by the "secretive author [who] could be subject to nondisclosure agreements." Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt continued in a letter to the publisher:

"If the author is, in fact, a current or former 'senior official' in the Trump administration, publication of the book may violate that official's legal obligations under one or more nondisclosure agreements, including nondisclosure agreements that are routinely required with respect to information obtained in the course of one's official responsibilities or as a condition for access to classified information."

NDAs—who needs them, even though practically everyone in high positions in government and industry signs them? So what if you are in a position where you are privy to important national secrets? Say what you want to destroy a president's career—but be sure to do so anonymously. Whatever you do, don't stand up for yourself! Who cares about profiles in courage? Tell everyone you are doing this as a "public service." And if someone questions your truthfulness because of your cloak of anonymity, claim you are doing that, very reluctantly, to preserve your career (just make sure they don't get a look at your royalty check).
...

These people should be brought to justice if they have committed any unlawful acts.  We already know that the "whistleblower" does not qualify for whistleblower status.  As Simon points out the "Anonymous" author is likely in violation of a nondisclosure agreement.

Trump does seem to have a knack for getting people to expose their inner crazy.  What is really crazy is that these people do not like his policies even if they have worked better than most people imagined they would.

BTW, here is a long interview with Lee Smith about his book exposing the plot against the President.  With the Ukraine thing bubbling up he will have a chance to write a sequel.