Why Adam Schiff doesn’t want anyone talking to the whistleblower

Mr. "Let's call the witnesses" seems to NOT want his star witness involved. the reason is obvious ..


Why Adam Schiff doesn’t want anyone talking to the whistleblower


https://nypost.com/2019/12/30/why-ad...ergnet_4747003


The truth behind House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff’s role in engineering President Trump’s impeachment may soon come out. Judicial Watch, a nonprofit group promoting government transparency, is suing to get the whistleblower’s emails.


That’s good news. Because no matter what comes of Trump’s Senate trial, Schiff should be held accountable for his devious methods.


The public also needs the truth about the so-called whistleblower. Real whistleblowers deserve to be treated like heroes. But Eric Ciaramella — the man Judicial Watch and many media accounts have identified as the whistleblower and who doesn’t deny it — is no hero.


To dignify Ciaramella with the term “whistleblower” misrepresents what he did. Sure, he filed what is technically called a whistleblower complaint. But he had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s controversial July 25 phone call or motivations. Every allegation in the complaint begins with “I learned from multiple US officials,” or “multiple officials told me,” or “officials with direct knowledge informed me.” Just gossip. He never names any sources. Ciaramella acted as the anti-Trumpers’ front man. As for courage, not an ounce: He is cowering from public view.


Compare him to real whistleblowers. Jay Brainard, the top Transportation Safety Administration official in Kansas, blew the whistle this month, warning the TSA is lowering metal-detector sensitivity levels to shorten airport lines. He went on TV to warn against sacrificing safety for convenience.


Similarly, Boeing ex-employee Ed Pierson is blowing the whistle against the company for allegedly overworking assembly-line employees, leading to production errors that could cause 737 MAX planes to malfunction or crash. (Boeing denies a connection.)


Real whistleblowers speak from firsthand knowledge. They muster the courage to expose dangers or abuses that would otherwise go unreported. Movies are made about heroes like former cigarette company executive Jeffrey Wigand, who went on “60 Minutes” to expose the industry coverup of addiction.


During hearings, Schiff cracked his gavel repeatedly to silence questions from Republicans about the whistleblower. Truth is, Schiff was protecting himself. Even now, if the whistleblower talks, details of Schiff’s role in launching the complaint may come out.


What is already known is that on July 26, one day after Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president, Schiff hired Sean Misko to join his staff. Shortly after that hire, Schiff’s staff met with Ciaramella, a friend and co-worker of Misko’s in the intelligence community. Schiff’s staff gave Ciaramella “guidance” on how to make a complaint. A cozy arrangement. The emails will likely divulge more.


Schiff concealed these dealings until the New York Times caught him in the lie. Schiff also withheld from House investigators documents detailing how his staff aided the whistleblower.


The whistleblower filed his complaint with intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson on Aug. 12, also concealing that he had met with Schiff’s staff. When the complaint became public in September, Schiff feigned surprise.


Even worse, Schiff obscured how the whistleblower complaint ever saw the light of day. The big question is why Atkinson deemed the complaint “credible” enough to be reported to Congress — the trigger required for Schiff to launch an impeachment investigation.


The document contained nothing but “second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions” that regulations say are insufficient for a complaint to be acted on. Accounts of wrongdoing from co-workers don’t qualify. Atkinson’s Sept. 30 statement defending his decision to deem the complaint “credible” amounts to: “I did it, because I did it.” He never gave a reason.


Atkinson’s Oct. 4 closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee undoubtedly offers answers, but Schiff refuses to let even House members see it. The transcripts of all the 18 other witnesses have been released, but not Atkinson’s. It’s a stunning omission.


By concealing that testimony, Schiff is propping up what Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel calls the whistleblower’s “hearsay report” and keeping Schiff’s own role in launching the complaint under wraps.


But the truth about Schiff’s intrigues will likely be uncovered in the emails Judicial Watch is seeking. Sadly, too late to spare the nation from impeachment.

We need to hear from Mick Mulvaney directly. Get over it.

Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/u...itary-aid.html

By late summer, top lawyers at the Office of Management and Budget who had spoken to lawyers at the White House and the Justice Department in the weeks beforehand, were developing an argument — not previously divulged publicly — that Mr. Trump’s role as commander in chief would simply allow him to override Congress on the issue.

And Mr. Mulvaney is shown to have been deeply involved as a key conduit for transmitting Mr. Trump’s demands for the freeze across the administration.

He . . . Got . . . Caught. No need to ask the person who called the fire department why they called when the house is already on fire.

Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/u...itary-aid.html




He . . . Got . . . Caught. No need to ask the person who called the fire department why they called when the house is already on fire. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

if .. you .. say .. so.

Atkinson’s Oct. 4 closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee undoubtedly offers answers, but Schiff refuses to let even House members see it. The transcripts of all the 18 other witnesses have been released, but not Atkinson’s. It’s a stunning omission.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

We need to hear from Mick Mulvaney directly. Get over it. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Who’s “WE”? Give him a call.

We need to hear from Mick Mulvaney directly. Get over it. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Sure put Mulvaney on the hot seat right along with the Whistle blower, after all it was the Whistle Blower also known as Eric Ciarmella who initiated this whole thing. I think the GOP needs to just stir the shit storm and get it over with.

Who’s “WE”? Give him a call. Originally Posted by bambino

The Whitehouse switchboard keeps giving us, the U.S., the runaround.

The Whitehouse switchboard keeps giving us, the U.S., the runaround.


Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

if you say so.

The Whitehouse switchboard keeps giving us, the U.S., the runaround.














Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

When you refer to “us” or “we”, are you referring to the bottle you’re sipping on?

Let’s see, yous don’t want to hear the first hand informations from Trumps perfect call?

After all the screaming and yelling about all of the second hand informations?

So you don’t want to hear from the people who were on the call and take the word of the world’s most unabashed and prolific liar?

Make sense. Must be fucking nice.

I'M the world’s most unabashed and prolific liar...I'M THE PERMA-BANNED ASSUP

Make sense THAT I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A SECOND HANDLE...I COULDN'T KEEP LOLLING IN PIG SHIT OTHERWISE.

IT'S fucking nice . Originally Posted by HoeHummer

I can’t figure out if Republicans don’t care about the truth or if they’re just gullible morons.

Let’s say everything you say above is factually correct (it’s not). Why does the whistleblower matter at this point if what he reported has been confirmed by 10 people, some with first hand knowledge, including Trump himself?

Why wouldn’t you want to hear from people that were at the call? Heck, why wouldn’t you want to hear from Trump himself? Only guilty people plead the fifth, someone once said (it was Trump). But he won’t allow people to testify, he won’t release the real transcript, he won’t release relevant documents. He publicly asked China for dirt on Biden. The guy is crooked. The whistleblower? He’s just a Republican red herring.

I can’t figure out if Republicans don’t care about the truth or if they’re just gullible morons.

Let’s say everything you say above is factually correct (it’s not). Why does the whistleblower matter at this point if what he reported has been confirmed by 10 people, some with first hand knowledge, including Trump himself?

Why wouldn’t you want to hear from people that were at the call? Heck, why wouldn’t you want to hear from Trump himself? Only guilty people plead the fifth, someone once said (it was Trump). But he won’t allow people to testify, he won’t release the real transcript, he won’t release relevant documents. He publicly asked China for dirt on Biden. The guy is crooked. The whistleblower? He’s just a Republican red herring. Originally Posted by Barrymccockinner

Except the thing about the fifth amendment. Nadler disappointed me. That's when it started getting hot. Really late.

Sure put Mulvaney on the hot seat right along with the Whistle blower, after all it was the Whistle Blower also known as Eric Ciarmella who initiated this whole thing. I think the GOP needs to just stir the shit storm and get it over with. Originally Posted by Levianon17

The shit storm would last until November. The only way to get it over with is to not call witnesses. I think the Republican Senators have figured it out. Sit in the Senate for 10-12 hours a day for months and not go home because of Adam Schitt and the DNC, or not call witnesses make legislative progress and campaign.

I can’t figure out if Republicans don’t care about the truth or if they’re just gullible morons.

.... Originally Posted by Barrymccockinner

Let me help you. You can't figure it out not because the Republicans are the gullible morons...

I hear from Mick Mulvaney directly, I think the GOP needs to just stir the shit storm