Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

What did Adam Schiff know, and when did he know it?

What did Adam Schiff know, and when did he know it?

Given that impeachment is an inherently political process, the public is entitled to know all the facts as to how this “whistleblower complaint” was manufactured, including the role of Adam Schiff and Democrat House Intelligence Committee staff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOSF3qMieBA

The “Whistleblower Complaint” regarding Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian President is a very suspect document in many respects.

It does not read like a whistleblower complaint.

It reads like a closing statement or legal brief written by a person who had no direct knowledge of the facts, but was relying on what others told him or her. It added almost nothing that the memo of the conversation doesn’t reveal, except the discredited claim that there was a cover up of the memo (it was put in the same secure system as other such memos to try to prevent leaks).

According to the NY Times, the whistleblower is a CIA intelligence officer once assigned to the White House. Even so, the complaint is a very sophisticated document beyond the capability of even a sophisticated intelligence community professional. It looks like a document drafted by lawyers.

Today we learned that prior to the filing of the complaint, the whistleblower sought advice from Adam Schiff’s staff on the House Intelligence Committee as to how to pursue the complaint. Schiff denies talking with the whistleblower himself, but committee staff admit that they communicated with the whistleblower as to how to proceed, and shared some details with Schiff:

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Schiff tweeted on August 28 allegations similar to what the whistleblower claimed, before the complaint was delivered to Congress:

Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent.

It doesn’t take a stable genius to see the magnitude of this conflict.

Or how destructive it is to our national security.

https://twitter.com/repadamschiff/status/1166867471862829056

Despite attempts by Schiff’s staff to downplay their role, this makes a lot clear, and calls out for more information.

If the whistleblower was so sophisticated, how is it he or she didn’t know the procedures to follow? To which lawyers was the whistleblower referred? This last point is important because the Inspector General letter on the complaint noted:

“the ICIG’s preliminary review identified some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.”

Did Democrat lawyers draft the complaint for the whistleblower?

What did Schiff and staff know and what were they told? The whistleblower may have forfeited statutory whistleblower protections by going outside the system and directly to congressional staff.

Why did Schiff lie about contact with the whistleblower, when he claimed neither he nor staff had contact with the whistleblower prior to the filing of the complaint?

“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.”

Why did Schiff’s staff then lie about Schiff’s lie?

“The Chairman could have been more clear – he was referring to the Committee officially interviewing the whistleblower, and himself personally.”

This has all the appearances of a politically biased complainant colluding with Democrat politicians and staffers to create a pretext for impeachment.

Given that impeachment is an inherently political process, public opinion will matter. The public is entitled to know all the facts as to how this “whistleblower complaint” was manufactured.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This should be like the attorney client privilege, in which a statement made to a third party is not made privileged because it is later made to an attorney. Similarly, a federal employee’s statements (and identity) made to a house committee member’s staff do not become protected because the employee subsequently files a whistleblower complaint in proper channels.

JackinSilverSpring | October 2, 2019 at 9:47 pm

The so-called whistleblower was a leaker reporting to the Schiff committee a distorted version of President Trump’s conversation with President Zelensky. The committee or its staff worked with the leaker to make his leak a whistleblower complaint and provide the leaker eith cover. I would speculare the ICIG was in on the attempt to take the President down. It seems Schiff needs to be charged with conspiracy to commit sedition, and asked what he knows and when he got to know it.

    I think the reason for framing it as hearsay was to avoid perjury charges. If it’s all hearsay, the complainant can make any allegations she wants, including some very attention-getting ones, and it does not matter if they are truthful, or not.

      ronk in reply to Valerie. | October 3, 2019 at 3:59 am

      actually that is not true, if you can find the form again, I tried but couldn’t, the form has a section at the ‘whistle-blower’ affirms that what is in the document is true, if not it subject the ‘whistle-blower’ to up to $10000 fines and or up to 5 years in prison. they took out the first hand knowledge but left in the true fullness of the claim.

      the whistle-blower gets to remain anonymous if no laws were broken by that person

        Valerie in reply to ronk. | October 3, 2019 at 5:45 am

        The person reporting hearsay is not asserting that what she heard is true. That is why these forms used to require personal knowledge.

          ronk in reply to Valerie. | October 3, 2019 at 6:11 am

          here is the part of the complaint I was referring to
          “*I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint (including any continuation pages) are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001, knowingly and willfully making a false statement or concealing a material fact in any matter within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch, including the ICIG, is a criminal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000.00, imprisonment for up to five (5) years, or both.”

          Barry in reply to Valerie. | October 3, 2019 at 9:25 am

          You’re missing the point. The affirmation does not include affirming the hearsay itself is true, only that there was “hearsay”.

          Proving “hearsay” is made up is difficult.

          Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | October 3, 2019 at 9:38 am

          The allegations only have to be true to the best of the complainant’s knowledge and belief. In other words he shouldn’t report allegations he’d heard but did not believe; but how could a prosecutor possibly prove that? All he has to say is that he trusted his sources.

        Virginia42 in reply to ronk. | October 3, 2019 at 9:53 am

        Yep. This whole thing is just another Dem phony scandal.

    Schiff-for-brains is a disgrace. I hope the public recognizes that.

    It does not read like a whistleblower complaint.

    The first time I read through it, I thought THAT was written by a team of lawyers! Not some disgruntled employee.

    It seems Schiff needs to be charged with conspiracy to commit sedition,

    Schiff is a disgrace, but that is ridiculous. Nothing he did is treason, nor is it sedition, or any other crime I can think of. It’s just low gutter politics, for which he deserves the contempt of every decent person; but that was just as true a few weeks ago as it is now.

I said, from Day One, that Schitt was up to his scrawny little pencil neck in the creation of this whole thing

Comanche Voter | October 2, 2019 at 9:50 pm

Both the “whistleblower” aka “Leaking Fabulist” and Little Adam Schiff have a lot of ‘splaining to do. This thing smells like a fresh wind off a pig farm sewage lagoon.

I know that I am just a hobbyist when it comes to the law, but I have a problem with the wistle blower statutes. How can one prepair and present a defence when the accuser is shielded by the government?

I understand the arguments made when the statutes were written (though I disagree with many of them). In my mind I still believe that the accused has the right to face their accuser.

    Tom Servo in reply to Shadow5. | October 2, 2019 at 11:17 pm

    This is a total misuse of the whistleblower process. It is SUPPOSED to be about allowing lower level employees report theft, graft, and misappropriation of funds without fear of being fired by their bosses. It was NEVER intended to allow political factions in Congress to try to interfere with foreign policy powers of the Executive Branch.

    This entire thing is a huge fraud and a scam.

    Milhouse in reply to Shadow5. | October 3, 2019 at 12:20 am

    I have a problem with the whistle blower statutes. How can one prepare and present a defense when the accuser is shielded by the government?

    A “whistleblower” complaint cannot form the basis of any prosecution, so there is no defense to prepare or present. Any prosecution that eventually results from investigation of the complaint rests on evidence that the investigation uncovered, to which the defendant has full access.

    Normal criminal defendants are also not entitled to confront the informant who originally tipped the police off to their conduct; they’re only entitled to confront those whose accusations are actually being used against them in court. Often that will be the police investigator, not the original informant.

      MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2019 at 8:09 am

      This whistle blower complaint is the basis of an impeachment, so yes the defendant can and must be allowed to confront the accuser

        Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | October 3, 2019 at 9:41 am

        That is not true. The subject of an impeachment has no rights except those the house (before impeachment) or senate (at trial) chooses to give him. They do not even have to let him have a lawyer, let alone to confront his accuser.

          Formerly known as Skeptic in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2019 at 11:24 am

          IANAL, but it would seem to me that the trial in the Senate is just that – a trial – and as such ALL Constitutional protections would apply.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2019 at 3:08 pm

          Then why does the Chief Justice of SCOTUS preside over the Senate when the president is the subject of an impeachment trial? Is his presence meant to merely lend a cachet of “due process” where none exists?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 4, 2019 at 1:41 am

          IANAL, but it would seem to me that the trial in the Senate is just that – a trial – and as such ALL Constitutional protections would apply.

          Yes, it’s a trial. So what? There are no constitutional protections for trials as such. The fifth amendment puts limits on how people can be convicted of crimes, or deprived of life, liberty, or property. The trial of an impeachment does none of that, so the amendment is irrelevant.

          Then why does the Chief Justice of SCOTUS preside over the Senate when the president is the subject of an impeachment trial?

          Because you could hardly have the Vice President preside.

      Shadow5 in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2019 at 9:47 am

      “The wistleblower complaint cannot from the basis of any prosecution —”
      Actually the complaint is used as probable cause to begain the investigation. Therefore (though the state acts as the accuser) the accuser is the complainant. It is all a shell game designed as an end run arround constitutional protections.

        Yes, probable cause to begin an investigation, where the first step is to ask the whistleblower *who* told them about the alleged criminal action. I strongly suspect the investigation would end right there because (select one)
        A) He is making it all up and has no first party witnesses.
        B) His first party witnesses will promptly kick him under the bus. “Who, Bob? Never heard of him.”
        C) His ‘first party witnesses’ were all just as clueless about the phone call as he was, and set up the whistleblower as a patsy because they were not about to stick their necks out on the basis of some office gossip.

        Then Trump went ahead and did D) Release the transcript and show there’s no ‘there’ there. Boom went the legit out of the investigation and all we have left is the Left’s constant whining.

          DaveGinOly in reply to georgfelis. | October 3, 2019 at 3:13 pm

          In this situation, the whistle blower acted as a gatherer of “facts” from other parties. Although his (the whistle blower) ID may be protected by statute, there is probably no protection for his witnesses because they did not file the complaint – they are not whistle blowers.

          Every effort should be made to identify the whistle blower’s sources and to have their testimony put on the record, even if it’s, “I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.”

        Milhouse in reply to Shadow5. | October 4, 2019 at 1:50 am

        Actually the complaint is used as probable cause to begain the investigation.

        Cause, anyway; no probable cause is needed to begin an investigation. In any case, it’s irrelevant.

        Therefore (though the state acts as the accuser) the accuser is the complainant.

        No, he is not. The accuser, whom the defendant has the right to confront, is the whoever makes the accusation at trial. There is no such thing as a right to confront anyone who fed information to the accuser.

        As far as the constitution is concerned it’s none of the defendant’s business how the investigation started. It might have been a whim, or a fishing expedition. All that matters is whether the jury has been presented with evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.

It’s not hard to figure out the truth when it comes to Schiff, you listen to what he says, then take the opposite of it, there you have it.

If he says he didn’t have anything to do with the CIA plant from Brennan who concocted the “whistle blower” story, then you take him at his word, sort of, you just flip it.

He is a shallow excuse for a human being. He would lie about what he had for Breakfast because this is who and what he is.

    Milhouse in reply to oldgoat36. | October 3, 2019 at 12:21 am

    It’s not hard to figure out the truth when it comes to Schiff, you listen to what he says, then take the opposite of it, there you have it.

    If only it were that simple. A perfectly reliable liar is just as good as a perfectly reliable truth-teller. Real-life liars aren’t like that; they mix truth and lies so it’s difficult to tell one from the other.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2019 at 9:30 am

      “…they mix truth and lies so it’s difficult to tell one from the other.”

      No, only you have that problem The rest of us recognize the lies almost instantly, as I did with this POS “whistleblower” complaint.

      Trump Derangement Syndrome causes this problem. You so hope the lie is true you can’t see the truth.

      If Schitt’s lips are moving, he’s lying.

        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | October 3, 2019 at 9:42 am

        If you really believe that you are deranged. Schiff tells the truth dozens of times a day. Just not all the time. The mere fact that he says something does not make it false.

          True. So how does he weasel out of this? A: Technical language. Worst case, even if the whistleblower worked extensively with Schiff’s staff, and Schiff communicated with him by phone and aide’s shuttling back and forth, if he made sure he never actually *met* with Bob the Whistleblower, Schiff can claim much the same as he has so far.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 4, 2019 at 1:53 am

          Or he doesn’t weasel out of it. He may just blow it off. It’s not as if lying is a crime. It’s just politically embarrassing, and if the media don’t focus on it few people will notice or care.

          I have not suggested that Schiff is telling the truth in this instance. All I’m saying is that we can’t know it’s a lie merely because he said it.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | October 4, 2019 at 12:13 pm

          What “truth” has Schitt told with respect to Trump?

          Go ahead, name it.

          You can’t. You’re as big a liar as Schitt. You always take up for the progs.

      Shadow5 in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2019 at 10:05 am

      I see you have read the “Screwtape Letters”. Now I understand your affinity for playing the devils advocate.

Schiff is a narcissistic idiot. And, as most people’s staffs reflect them, more or less, the same can be said for them as well.

What happened here was that Schiff and/or his staff got wind of the Ukraine call. They saw this as a potential route for impeachment and jumped on it. Unfortunately, as with every other Get Trump operation, it was run by idiots in a hurry-up, slap-dash manner. So, some attorneys put their schooling and experience in the legal profession to work and put together a rock solid legal brief. The only problem is, it LOOKS like a legal brief. Then they changed thee whistleblower rules so that this document consisting of innuendo could be entered as an evidenciary document to justify the impeachment investigation. Sounds good, so far.

But, this is where it gets interesting. If there had been no Russian Collusion investigation and no Mueller SC investigation and those involved [most notably Adam Schiff] had not lied their way through those operations, people might buy the current fabricated narrative. But, as Lincoln supposedly noted; “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. And, the lies will sink this complaint. However, the complaint raises several very disturbing questions for Joe Biden, other members of the Obama Administration and current and former members of Congress.

    alaskabob in reply to Mac45. | October 2, 2019 at 10:54 pm

    It’s a money trail….with sophisticated shells obscured and shielded. The CIA has practice overthrowing regimes….here is the latest..The USA.

    Tom Servo in reply to Mac45. | October 2, 2019 at 11:19 pm

    Yes! This is exactly what I was thinking! They focused so hard on writing the “Perfect” complaint that they didn’t even realize that they were telegraphing their involvement to everyone who saw it.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Mac45. | October 3, 2019 at 3:23 pm

    I used to work for the Washington State Patrol. My job was to create and revise forms. Every time a request was made to revise an existing form, a record was kept of who made the request, who made the revision (me or my supervisor, the only two people in the agency who did this sort of work), and who approved the revised version. This is standard form control process. I can’t imagine that such a process does not exist at the federal level. If such a process does exist, and the record of the complaint form’s alteration/revision is deficient, the form itself is (what my supervisor and I called) a “bootleg” form, and not authorized for use. As such, its legal status (regarding the change permitting hearsay) could be questioned.

Adam Schiff saying he did not meet with the whistleblower is like Bill Clinton saying he never had sex with that woman.

It seems to me that the whistleblower committed espionage. The material was still classified when it was leaked to the House. Yet, I doubt that he will face the firing squad for his treason.

    Milhouse in reply to InEssence. | October 3, 2019 at 12:23 am

    Leaking classified material to congress isn’t and cannot be treason. Congress, by definition, cannot be an enemy of the United States.

      redc1c4 in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2019 at 2:24 am

      you obviously haven’t been paying attention all these years…

        Barry in reply to redc1c4. | October 3, 2019 at 9:32 am

        When you look up milhouse in the dictionary, it says “See the three monkeys”.

        Milhouse in reply to redc1c4. | October 3, 2019 at 9:44 am

        I have been paying close attention. But by definition, no matter what it does, Congress cannot be an enemy of the United States.

          Formerly known as Skeptic in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2019 at 11:33 am

          I will agree with you only to the extent that I believe Congress, as a whole, acting within is Constitutional bounds, cannot be an enemy of the United States. Individuals within Congress, however, certainly can be.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 4, 2019 at 1:59 am

          Can individuals of any kind ever be classed as enemies of the United States? I suppose it’s theoretically possible, but has it ever happened? It would have to be a uniquely powerful individual.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2019 at 5:47 pm

      It may not have been treasonous, but that doesn’t make it legal. I am unaware of anything in the Espionage Act that allows classified (Secret in this case) to be leaked to Congress. Sitting Members of Congress are probably exempt from prosecution there, but maybe not their staff, and more certainly not the leaker.

      Indeed, I think it also likely that the people who leaked to the “whistleblower” also probably violated the Espionage Act. The information leaked is owned by the White House and not the Intelligence Community. Indeed, both the ODNI and DOJ OLC have made this exact point that it involved foreign relations and not intelligence gathering. It is apparently clearly marked that it is owner controlled, and that means Trump. That likely means that he is the sole person who can authorize its dissemination, and he clearly had not, at the time it was apparently leaked to the press and Schiff’s staff.

Crossfire hurricane/mueller investigation was a brennan/comey operation that failed bigly.

Ukrainegate is a brennan/schiff operation that is in the process of failing bigly AND boomeranging on the democrats.

Let’s face it, brennan sucks at this.

Who leaked it to the “WhistleBlower”? It can only be one of a very few people, I’d like to find that out as well.

Mac45 | October 2, 2019 at 10:41 pm

Schiff is a narcissistic idiot. And, as most people’s staffs reflect them, more or less, the same can be said for them as well.

Not an idiot. And he knows his already 99.44% chance of being reelected keeps getting even stronger as his LA constituents just love every effort to “resist” Trump regardless of how unethical or immoral such effort might be.

“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.”

Please note that this does not exclude phone calls, direct meetings with his staff, exchanged shred-after-reading documents, and full coordination of the ambush with the rest of the Dem members of the committe who can keep their mouths shut.

And by ‘does not exclude’ I mean they obviously did.

In the first place the whole thing is a political scam,that I predict will end up backfiring on the DemocRats,they deserve to lose across the board,presidency,house and senate.

Doesn’t this Whistle Blower complaint remind us of another accusation that eventually turned into the Mueller probe? The Democrat paid for Dossier was second hand information that Anti-Trump Commey and his cronies at the FBI used to acquire Fisa Warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

Now here we are two years later and another round of second or third hand accusations arrive. Then we have the fact that a short while ago the Whistle blower rules changed so now second hand and third hand information can be used when in the past only First hand info was allowed. This changing of the Whistle blower rule might have first been used when the Democrats came out with the accusations against Justice Kavanaugh. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the so call victim denied ever remembering anything about what the charge claimed against Kavanaugh.

So back to Schiff. Wasn’t it Schiff for two years claimed to have proof he had evidence of Russia collusion and following the Mueller report Schiff never provided that proof. So it should be clear by now were dealing with a snake in the grass who will say anything to the media who’s always happy to carry his and the Democrats water.

I also see this as a means to take the public’s attention away from what’s really going to be damming for the Democrats. That being the Attorney Generals findings on Fisa abuse. I expect heads will roll when that report is out.

2smartforlibs | October 3, 2019 at 9:05 am

He knew in Aug that’s fact. The same aug the ICIG rules were changed twice.

    Milhouse in reply to 2smartforlibs. | October 3, 2019 at 9:59 am

    The rule was not changed. There was never a requirement for first-hand information only. The old form misleadingly suggested such a requirement, so it was revised.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2019 at 3:32 pm

      But when and by whom? Timing is critical. If the change was made to make the form conform with statute, it is far more likely to have been changed at an uncritical time. If changed just before this complaint was made then there must have been collusion between the purported whistle blower and the powers that make the agency run, i.e. the people who control the forms and authorize their revision.

        milhouse isn’t that stupid, only because nobody is that stupid.

        We all know why it was changed at this time.

        ANYONE suggesting otherwise is not being truthful.

      “The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,” the previous form stated under the bolded heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.” “This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing.”

      “If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA,” the form concluded.”

      Sounds a bit stronger than a suggestion to me. The form of course is not the law. I think the law requires a “credible” complaint to qualify as an urgent concern. Conveniently, the ICIG changed the form in August so that the WB complaint would qualify as an urgent concern.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | October 4, 2019 at 12:21 pm

      More cover up by milhouse.

      There was a requirement. There is law and there is procedure. The law has no such requirement. The procedure did, and it was changed, change only to allow this bullshit complaint to proceed.

      And milhouse is fine with it, and helps to provide cover for it.

      IT WAS CHANGED FOR ONE REASON ONLY, TO “GET” TRUMP.

Schiff tweeted on August 28 allegations similar to what the whistleblower claimed, before the complaint was delivered to Congress:

Not sure if we are reading that correctly. The whistleblower complaint was released by the House Intelligence Committee on August 26.

The activity reported did not involve an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the DNI and therefore did not qualify as an ‘urgent concern’ as defined in the statute. 50 U.S.C §3033(k)(5)(g).

Also, since the activity reported did not involve an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the DNI, the ICIG was arguably not authorized to accept and investigate the complaint or information in the first place. 50 U.S.C. §3033(g)(3).

I’m not a lawyer, but I certainly don’t think this person should be considered a “whistleblower” at all. Informer, snitch, stool pigeon, tattletale maybe, but not whistleblower.

Add to the above the fact that the current ICIG was Senior Counsel to the DOJ National Security Division from early-mid 2016 to late 2017, when he was appointed to his current position. During his tenure at DOJ, part of his responsibility would have been to ensure the activities of NSD were compliant with the law. Things like ensuring information in FISA warrant applications was properly vetted and don’t lie to the FISA Court, among others. This would seem to make him a fact witness to the activities of the NSD during his tenure if not a potential co-conspirator.

With that background, who recommended his nomination to be ICIG?

This has dirty fingerprints all over it.
• Construct a narrative
• Leak the narrative to your media puppets who report it (anonymous sources of course)
• Cite the media reports a verification of your narrative.
This appears to be yet another iteration of an accuser being coached or guided by Democrat committee members and/or staff for purely political reasons (Blasey-Ford during the Kavanaugh hearings).

“The Russia hoax made them look stupid. The Ukraine hoax exposes them as complicit.” – anon

    Barry in reply to joe.butin. | October 4, 2019 at 12:29 pm

    You are right, it’s not a whistleblower.

    It is a leaker of fabricated information. It’s a corrupt criminal cabal dedicated to the removal of the duly elected president.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend