Image 01 Image 03

Schiff Claims He Does ‘Not Know the Identity of the Whistleblower’

Schiff Claims He Does ‘Not Know the Identity of the Whistleblower’

“I do not know the identity of the whistleblower and I’m determined to make sure the identity is protected.”

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff claimed once again he does not know the identity of the whistleblower who set off the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

From Townhall:

At the beginning of the first public impeachment inquiry hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who was temporarily moved to the Intelligence Committee, asked Schiff when they could vote on having the whistleblower testify since it was he who wanted to hear their testimony in the first place.

“You are the only member who knows who that individual is, and your staff is the only staff of any member of Congress who has had a chance to talk with that individual,” Jordan said. “We would like that opportunity. When might that happen in this proceeding today?”

“First, as the gentleman knows, that’s a false statement. I do not know the identity of the whistleblower and I’m determined to make sure the identity is protected,” Schiff replied. “But as I said to Mr. Conway, you’ll have an opportunity after the witnesses have testified to make a motion to subpoena any witness and compel a vote.”

Well, Schiff needs to look at reports from September and October.

Back in October, the Intelligence Community Inspector General said “the whistleblower did not disclose contact w Schiff/Committee staff – so IG never looked into it.”

A few days before that The New York Times reported Schiff knew about the whistleblower’s accusation before anyone filed a complaint.

Even The Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchios because for two months he kept claiming no one on his committee spoke to the whistleblower.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


His name is Fnord.

liar, liar, pants on fire… you neck looks like a piece of wire.

1. There is something disturbingly wrong about Schiff. 2. No normal person could expect this degree of dishonesty to go unchallenged if a normal press existed. But it is clear the American press is made up of Democratic Party members, with stupidity a premium requirement.

“No conscience” on display. A model leftist.

    TX-rifraph in reply to TX-rifraph. | November 13, 2019 at 11:42 am

    Sociopaths have no conscience. He is just telling us about his hollow character. He actually sees nothing wrong with his lies. He is the Democrat Party.

    jmccandles in reply to TX-rifraph. | November 14, 2019 at 8:47 am

    I think Schiff just lied to and in front of congress with his statement,he should be prosecuted for it.

      Milhouse in reply to jmccandles. | November 14, 2019 at 11:13 pm

      1. Lying to and in front of Congress is not a crime.
      2. Even if it were, he’s a member of Congress so he can’t be prosecuted for anything he says on the floor or in committee.

JackinSilverSpring | November 13, 2019 at 11:38 am

What a sack oh Schift this guy is. He admitted he worked with the leaker, and now he’s denying he knows the identity of the leaker. This guy belongs in the loony bin.

    No, he did not admit he worked with the leaker, and we don’t know whether he did. His staff worked with the leaker, and may or may not have told him the person’s name. They probably did, but that’s just a guess.

Arguably, Congress *is* the Loony Bin.

WOW!! just WOW! So Schiff’s staff has talked to the WB (Eric the Pajama Boy) but they withheld his identity from Schiff, according to Schiff. He had better get a new staff then because that’s real insubordination.
OR he’s lying through his teeth.

    Milhouse in reply to Lowell. | November 14, 2019 at 12:33 am

    It’s not insubordination unless he told them to tell him.

      dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | November 14, 2019 at 6:40 am

      So you are saying that Schiff staffs out his due diligence?

        Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | November 14, 2019 at 11:15 pm

        What due diligence? He had no duty to find out who this person is. He may even have specifically told his staff not to tell him. I don’t believe that, but I’m just guessing.

          dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | November 15, 2019 at 6:27 am

          The evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. You claim willful ignorance. Yet Schiff’s crew accidentally released the leasers name in a report.

          You are beyond obdurate

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2019 at 3:03 pm

          How does that in any way tend to indicate that Schiff himself knew Ciaramella’s name? It doesn’t. We know that at least some of his staff knew. We simply have no information on whether he knew it himself. We have his word that he didn’t, but that’s not worth anything, so we’re left with nothing.

“I do not know the identity of the whistleblower and I’m determined to make sure the identity is protected”

[crashing sound, middle of the night]

“Did you hear that?”


[another crash]

“I didn’t hear that either”

    So if what Schiff claims – that he doesn’t know the name of the whistle blower – then when a Repub mentions the name “Eric Ciaramella” Schiff will have no reaction one way or the other.

    Right? Right?

    And therefore Schiff won’t be able to claim that an Ethics violation has occurred.

      Exiliado in reply to pfg. | November 13, 2019 at 1:22 pm

      It is frustrating to see how spineless Republicans are, in general.
      That would be the first, number one thing that I’d do: mention Eric Ciaramella.
      The second thing would be to subpoena the SOB.

A GOP congress person should ask a witness if the witness ever spoke to Eric Ciaramella. Schiff cannot complain or object, because he, supposedly, does not know that Ciaramella is the so-called whistleblower.

So Schiff lied. In other news, water is wet.

I am trying to figure out how you protect the identity of a whistleblower (a protection that is not actually granted by any whistleblower laws), if you don’t know the whistleblowers identity?

Also, I hope someone does a montage of at least Schiff for Brains crazy faces today, it would be glorious.

What’s the under/over for Schiff for Brains having a complete meltdown before the end of the day?

I don’t know the whistle blower, but he met with me and my staff so we could coach him on how to fill out his whistle blower complaint.

So then the Republicans should be saying his name a lot, and when Schiff calls them out, ask how he knows that’s the leaker’s name?

The whistleblower ‘s name is Eric Ciaramella, as made public in the transcript that YOU, Schiff, released.

What a disingenuous moron scumbag.

There wasn’t a “whistle blower” until pressure built up to out him and make him actually appear before the committee. There was just a “whistle blower complaint” doctored up by Schiff’s staff.

Chris Wallace is saying Taylor is a credible witness and “damaging” to POTUS.
Chris W is lying democrat.

    bobinreverse in reply to lc. | November 13, 2019 at 1:26 pm

    Myron Leon Wallik Jr hates Trump and loves Schiff. Who knew?

    Sanddog in reply to lc. | November 13, 2019 at 10:28 pm

    Chris is yet another moron who believes the State Department sets foreign policy, not the President.

    Barry in reply to lc. | November 13, 2019 at 11:18 pm

    Father – Son, like.

    Milhouse in reply to lc. | November 14, 2019 at 12:37 am

    Taylor is credible. And what he said isn’t great for the President. But it’s not terrible, either. The bottom line is that even if everything the Dems allege is true, it’s no big deal, and nothing to impeach someone on.

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 14, 2019 at 1:22 am

      By the way, the same bottom line applied to the Russian allegations that so occupied the Dems for two years. I never paid much attention to the whole thing because it was obvious to me that even if the Dems’ accusations were 100% true no crime would have been committed.

Rep Shift needs to read the whistle blower form, it says best of my memory, ‘anonymity will be preserved unless it is used to prosecute’, and the Dems are using it to bring impeachment charges(prosecute) against Pres Trump.

    Milhouse in reply to ronk. | November 14, 2019 at 12:39 am

    Even if you count an impeachment trial as a “prosecution”, they’re not up to that yet. The House is gathering evidence and considering whether to prosecute the President in the Senate.

LIAR! Schiff must be brought up on perjury charges for openly lying to congress. Its unbelievable this lowlife POS is allowed to chair this scam!

Love Trump or Hate Trump, this is treason. If people hate him so much, then vite him out of office. We have entered a very slippery slope. This means everytime the Communist Democrat party loses an election (which they are probably fixed anyway) they will go into this treasonous mode of endless lying to remove their political enemies from positions of power.

Schiff should have a rope around his neck, not chairing Trumps hearings!

    Milhouse in reply to vettelover. | November 14, 2019 at 12:44 am

    What the ***** are you talking about? 1. Lying to Congress is not perjury; 2. it’s not a crime at all; 3. even if it were a crime, Schiff is a Congressman so he cannot be prosecuted for anything he says on the floor of the Congress or any committee.

    4. Love Trump, hate him, or anything else, this is NOT treason. The constitution says what is treason, and by proposing that Schiff hang for treason you are defying the constitution.

‘My saying I don’t know who the whistle blower is, is in part a parody.’

Well, look what happened to Spartacus. 🙂 🙂

He told everyone not to mention the whistleblower’s name. If he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is, how is he going to enforce that rule?

I think he is seriously delusional and needs some serious psychiatric help; either that, or he’s told so many lies he can’t keep them straight.

I remember this sleazy shitweasel repeating almost daily that he had “clear evidence” of Russian collusion. It never appeared. He is a lying fool.

If Shiff (for brains) doesn’t KNOW the whistleblowers name then how in the hell will he know if any body says the whistleblowers name? This guy is the head of the Intel Committee?

Actually, we have no independent evidence identifying the whistleblower rumor-monger. All we have are “clues” planted by Democrats. The whole Ciaramella thing could be a feint designed to protect the anonymity of the real source; and that would allow said source to continue spreading these fabrications.

I don’t know if the D’rats are crafty enough to pull that off, though they’re certainly crooked enough.

I think Schiff is a throw-away.
Nancy didn’t want to risk this, but was forced to by the Rabid Socialist faction.
So, rather than put a good asset in charge, she put Schiff in there as he is of no other value.
If he comes up with something, fine, if it goes wrong… no loss.
It looks like his time is up though.

I’m trying to get this thing to go viral, all help is appreciated.

Contact your representative (if a dem so much the better) with this message –
#EricCiaramella is the whistleblower. Pass it on to schiff.

Memes with ericciaramella are also a good idea.

Half of America votes for dupes like this.

when is someone going to ask these stooges if they have discussed any of their testimony with anyone else, then drill down to committee members. and by discussed I mean any form of communication, written, verbal, hand signs, anything. first hand, second hand whatever hand..

How do you protect the identity of someone if you don’t know who they are? Doesn’t really matter what Schiffabrains wants since the Whistleblower statutes don’t guarantee anonymity and the “whistleblower” violated those statutes anyway when he went to a member of Congress and his staff before going to the IG and then “omitted” (read: lied…) about doing so on his claim. Oh, and… Epstein didn’t commit suicide.

One of the R’s needs to hand pg. 236 of the William Taylor transcript to the next witness and simply ask the witness to read line 7 and 8. Schiff’s staff released the transcript so it is public information…

7 Q Okay. Does a person by the name of Eric Ciaramella
8 ring a bell for you?

They all should know him since he is so involved with Ukraine.

1) If as reported by the Wapo, the “whistleblower” is a CIA agent, then anyone outing them might be violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and looking at a prison sentence.

2) Among all those clamoring to learn the “whistleblower’s” identity, can anyone say what of any use to the impeachment inquiry might be gained if we knew their identity? Perhaps Ms. Chastain can say; or is she just doimg the R thing of making a lot lf noise and gesticulating wildly to distract attention from the inquiry.

3) If the Trump amd his supporters want to hear from those with first-hand knowledge of matters, why has he kept them from testifying? Best of al, why doesn’t he testifylive amd under oath, as he refused to during the Mueller probe? Is his course of conduct that of an innocent party?

4) Anybody here ever hear of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989? No, I didn’t think so.

5) Milhouse, you’re the only one in this thread who has even a semi-reasonable take on this.

    Milhouse in reply to neurodoc. | November 14, 2019 at 11:36 pm

    1. Nope. We’ve been around that block with the Plame game. The mere fact that someone works for the CIA does not make their identity secret. Most CIA employees are not covert.

    2. We could look into their background and impeach their credibility.

    3. Several reasons. First, the president’s ability to get confidential advice from his advisers is fundamental to our system of government. Congress has no right to pry into that. Second, he is right not to dignify this circus by treating it seriously. Third, only an idiot voluntarily testifies under oath in front of a body slavering for his blood and itching for an excuse to gin up a perjury charge against him. Trump may or may not be innocent (to the extent that there’s anything for him to be innocent of, since no crime is even being alleged), but his conduct in this regard is completely consistent with that of an innocent person.

    4. Yes. First, this person doesn’t qualify. Second, even if he did there is nothing in the Act preventing me, or anyone other than the Inspector General, from naming Eric Ciaramella.

    5. Thanks, I think. But you might be changing your assessment. I’m no Trump worshiper, but I’m with him on this, as I was on the Russia hoax.

2. Why do we need the whistleblower’s testimony for purposes of the inquiry, or if Trump is impeached? What would he/she testify to that is of particular importance and not obtainable through documents (we have now seen a transcript of the 7/25 Trump-Zelsensky call and we aren’t get anything more reliable unless T orders it retrieved from that super secret server, which he won’t) and the testimony of others with more immediate and reliable knowledge of the relevant facts? The whistleblower got the ball rolling, in effect, but they are now more or less an irrelevancy going forward, that is unless you can point to what only they might know that is relevant.

4. You assert the WPA of 1989 does not pertain, but you don’t explain why is doesn’t. Unless you do, then what you say is nothing more than ipsi dixit and as such of no consequence. Isn’t the clear intention of the WPA to protect whistleblowers, especially legitimate ones, which the IG judged him to be? What makes you think the law only prevents the IG from revealing the wb’s identity? You think no good purposes is served by the WPA, so no reason to care about its clear Congressional mandate?

3. Ever heard of “obstruction of justice”? Nixon tried to frustrate impeachment efforts by claiming he could hold on to the tapes and keep a great many people from testifying on account of privileges of all sorts. How did those claims stand up when the Supremes considered them? They didn’t, and Nixon was soon flying off from the South Lawn of the WH giving a V salute and smiling for the last time. “Dignify this circus by treating it seriously.”?! That’s far too silly to warrant a reply. And you add just more ipsi dixit, claiming that he is comporting himself like an innocent person. (How does this “innocent” person’s memory come and go things like whether he knows Sonland and remembers key conversations with him, someone else whose memory seems to come and go until it is refreshed by the testimony of people with integrity?)

1) Fitzgerald prosecuted Libby under several provisions of law and got convictions along with a sentence of 30 months. I don’t know why he didn’t charge Libby with violation of the IIPA (nor why he didn’t go after Armitage rather than Libby), but prosecutors go with their easiest to prove cases, and he got convictions for what he did charge. Do you know why he didn’t go with the IIPA in the Libby/Plame case? Are you a fan of doxxing generally, believing it best serves the common good?

5) You have persuaded me to change my assessment. (You speak of the Russian hoax, meaning you like Trump don’t believe that the Russians hacked our elections to favor here and undermine the US, though that is what all of our intelligence agencies concluded? Do you share the rest of Trump’s cockamamie thinking, e.g., that the Ukrainians did it and have the DNC server there?; Paul Manafort was framed up and deserves to be pardoned?; HRC won the popular vote because 3M illegal votes were cast?; etc.

Enjoy the show that’s going to unfold in coming weeks, and hold dear to your faith in the Trumpster.

    Milhouse in reply to neurodoc. | November 16, 2019 at 7:22 pm

    2. We need Ciaramella’s testimony because this whole farce starts with him. We need to interrogate him and expose him and those who put him up to it, in order to demonstrate that the whole thing rests on an utter lack of good faith.

    4. It doesn’t pertain because Ciaramella is not an innocent civil servant who in the course of his duties witnessed some breach of law. He was a spy in the White House from the beginning, waiting for some opportunity to undermine the president. When the Russia hoax failed without his having found anything, his confederates (whose identity we must find out) fed him information and then Schiff’s staff set him up with a lawyer to write a brief against the president.

    I think the law only prevents the IG from revealing Ciaramella’s identity, because it doesn’t say anyone else can’t reveal it. It imposes no obligations whatsoever on you, me, or any member of congress, so when Schiff says exposing him is against the law he is lying through his lying teeth. And so are all the so-called “journalists” who pretend the law prevents them from publishing Ciaramella’s name, when they know it doesn’t. They’re doubly false because they have never had any hesitation in publishing actual secrets when it could embarrass a Republican president. The publication of the details of CIA Air and of the government surveillance of the SWIFT system demonstrates that.

    3. Yes, I’ve heard of obstruction of justice. That’s what Bill Clinton committed when he instructed his doxy to perjure herself for him. The president’s assertion of his legitimate executive privilege is not obstruction.

    This process is a circus, and Trump is right to treat it with the contempt it deserves. Were he to treat it seriously people would get the wrong impression that it was serious.

    1. Fitzgerald didn’t prosecute Armitage because the whole point of his inquiry was to get Bush. So when Armitage came to him at the very beginning and told him that he was Novak’s source, that should have put an end to the whole inquiry; Fitzgerald knew then that the source was not anyone in the White House, and that no law had been broken. But that wouldn’t suit his purpose so he told Armitage to shut up while he went on a fishing trip through the White House, looking for some wrongdoing. He never found any, but managed to gin up a phony perjury charge against Libby, based entirely on an FBI agent’s memory of Libby told him differing from Libby’s memory.

    He couldn’t prosecute Libby for exposing Plame’s name, because it wasn’t secret. The CIA director kept playing games, refusing to say it was secret but also refusing to say it wasn’t, because the whole affair from the beginning was a CIA plot to bring down Bush. Which fortunately failed, but Libby was collateral damage.

    5. The Russian affair was a hoax. The Russians did not “hack our elections”. All they did (if they did even that) was to publish true information that may have influenced some people’s votes. That is not “hacking” the election (passing over the pejorative use of the verb “hack”, which is a whole nother subject); it’s improving it, and of course the Russians had every right in the world to do it.

    The allegation that Mueller so assiduously investigated was that someone in the Trump campaign had induced them to do it. Had it been true, so what? But try as he could Mueller could not find any evidence of it, and was forced to the conclusion that this had not happened.

    And no, “all of our intelligence agencies” did not conclude it. As far as I recall three agencies said this, and the other fourteen had no information or interest in it, so they said nothing. The claim that 17 agencies agreed on this was a Clinton lie.

    The DNC server is somewhere; I don’t know why anyone thinks it’s in the Ukraine rather than the bottom of the ocean, but if the president has heard a rumor that it’s there don’t you think it would be a good idea to ask about it just in case?

    Manafort was certainly guilty of the crimes he was convicted of, but the authorities had already decided years earlier not to go after him for them; that decision was changed for one reason only: because of his association with Trump, and the purpose was to isolate the President by making sure everyone got the message that it’s dangerous to get close to him. His prosecution was therefore illegitimate, and that is a decent argument for pardoning him, though I’m not sure how persuasive it is.

    There is certainly a significant level of fraudulent voting, and of fraudulent counting, which both major parties are convinced favors the Democrats, which is why the Republicans are so keen on preventing it and the Democrats are so keen on letting it go on unhindered. If either party thought the fraud favored the GOP they’d change their stance. Did the fraud amount to 3 million votes? I doubt it, but there’s no way to know, and I have no interest in the answer because it doesn’t matter. The legitimacy of Trump’s election does not depend in any way on whether he got more or fewer overall votes that Clinton, so his claims to have got more real votes than her are irrelevant puffery; neither he nor anyone else cares whether they’re true.

    Did that answer all your questions?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to neurodoc. | November 18, 2019 at 5:32 pm

    4) As someone who is actually protected by the Whistleblower act I can tell you with certainty that it does not make any grant or guarantee of Anonymity. So all of the “identifying the whistleblower is a crime” are full of crap.

    I can tell you that when I made my complaint it was only about a week before the entity in question knew who I was and I was even named on the 2 paragraph back page article in the paper.

Your answers are fascinating. The problem is you don’t adduce evidence in support of them. For example:

***”Manafort was certainly guilty of the crimes he was convicted of, but the authorities had already decided years earlier not to go after him for them; that decision was changed for one reason only: because of his association with Trump, and the purpose was to isolate the President by making sure everyone got the message that it’s dangerous to get close to him. His prosecution was therefore illegitimate, and that is a decent argument for pardoning him, though I’m not sure how persuasive it is.”***For years, The government was aware that Manafort was a mega- tax cheat and fraudster (fraud against banks), but “deep state” types (who?) didn’t prosecute him because they foresaw that he would be Trump’s campaign manager and they wouldn’t spring their trap until then, and “isolate the President by making sure everyone got the message it’s dangerous to get close to him.” WOW! Are “they” holding back on a number of certain convictions to play them as cards at future times against the good guys? ANYTHING to support such a wild-ass theory?

“2. We need Ciaramella’s testimony because this whole farce starts with him. We need to interrogate him and expose him and those who put him up to it, in order to demonstrate that the whole thing rests on an utter lack of good faith.” What basis for any of your contentions? Why did the IG find his allegations credible and expect them to be forwarded to Congress, as the law requires?

“There is certainly a significant level of fraudulent voting, and of fraudulent counting…” Certainly? What credible evidence? That’s Kris Kobach’s BS? (Voter suppression, that’s an R thing, right?)

“And no, “all of our intelligence agencies” did not conclude it.” Have any of our intelligence agencies supported Trump’s contention that Russia did not hack our elections, because hie buddy Vlad told him it didn’t happen, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary. With that evidence, Mueller got indictments against a dozen Russians.

Where do you get your farfetched (that’s being incredibly generous) ideas? They sound even farther out than the better known conspiracy theorists. Are you a Q-Anon follower?