Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Schiff Knew of Ukraine Whistleblower’s Complaint Before It Was Filed
The New York Times has reported that Trump bête noire Rep. Adam Schiff (D–CA) knew about the Ukraine whistleblower’s complaint before it was filed. This revelation gives the president’s supporters more evidence that the anonymous CIA officer’s filing is a partisan effort.
Two weeks ago, Schiff claimed on MSNBC that he hadn’t spoken with the whistleblower. Well, his phrasing was a bit more lawyerly than that:
“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” Schiff said on Sept. 17. The “we” and “directly” seem to be doing the heavy lifting here.
In Wednesday’s Times article, Schiff spokesman Patrick Boland admitted: “like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistleblower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community.”
And the whistleblower just happened to consult the most impeachment-happy member of Congress.
The White House was quick to react:
In a news conference in the East Room of the White House after this article was published, Mr. Trump called it a scandal that Mr. Schiff knew the outlines of the whistle-blower’s accusations before he filed his complaint.
“Big stuff. That’s a big story,” Mr. Trump said, waving a copy of the article in the air. “He knew long before and helped write it, too. It’s a scam,” the president added, accusing Mr. Schiff of helping the whistle-blower write his complaint. There is no evidence that Mr. Schiff did, and his spokesman said he saw no part of the complaint before it was filed.
The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy.
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.
“We don’t call him shifty Schiff for nothing,” said Mr. Trump. “He’s a shifty dishonest guy.”
Despite the blockbuster revelation, the Times piece subtly implies that Schiff and his office did nothing wrong while it casts the President in an unflattering light. This leads me to believe that the California congressman fed this news to the NYT before it was revealed by a more skeptical outlet.
Published in Politics
It sounds as if the “whistle-blower” forfeited his/her whistle-blower protections by going to Congressional Democrats before the ICIG. You would think someone who was employed by the CIA would know the rules. You would also think the Intelligence Community Inspector General would know to ask for the transcript before accepting the complaint as “credible.” You would be wrong.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/02/breaking-anti-trump-whistleblower-colluded-with-house-democrats-before-filing-complaint/
When do the indictments start.
/orders more popcorn
This leads me to believe that the California congressman fed this news to the NYT before it was revealed by a more skeptical outlet. @exjon
Me thinks you are right about that.
It’s quaint how you think the CIA is bound by rules. ; )
Surely, you jest. For my view on the total absence of any indictments, except, of course, a General who served his country for over 30 years, including combat duty, several other minor players in “Russia-gate” and a bunch of Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom, see my post entitled “Not.One.Single.Indictment”, http://ricochet.com/670280/not-one-single-indictment/.
Sincerely, Jim
I suspect the upcoming report on the origins of the Obama administration’s investigation of the Trump campaign must be a doozy. Our anonymous CIA operative … excuse me, “whistleblower”… is certainly pulling out all of the stops to change the subject. The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel has reported that this sort of thing is a recurring pattern.
So what if he did? Let’s assume for the moment that the allegations are sincere. If you were the one to make the allegations, wouldn’t it be wise for you to coordinate with someone with enough power to protect you somewhat?
It doesn’t matter how the allegations come out, or who told who. This is a political matter, not a legal matter. Everything is fair game. We the People will judge the truth of the matter and take appropriate action against the party most of us disagree with.
It is just a coincidence that the author of Dossier II (the revenge) went to Schiff before filling with the ICIG. Just like it is a coincidence that the ICIG used to be the top lawyer for the people that wrote up the FISA applications on Carter Page.
There are no coincidences in Washington.
Well duh! If it even is a CIA “officer” . . .
Yeah, I’m not even sure if this “whistleblower” exists, except on paper.
If anything, he’s a leaker, and a suspect one at that . . .
Jon, I wasn’t able to access the NYT article (paywall), but I assume that all of your quotes are from that single article.
So let me get this straight:
So the fact that the whistleblower “contacted the committee for guidance” is, somehow, not evidence that Mr. Schiff helped the whistleblower write his complaint?
It does make me wonder if these NYT editors and reporters read their own articles.
I’ll admit that this evidence is not conclusive. The admission is that the leaking-leaker “contacted the committee,” not Schiff personally (though it may have been him or his staff). The admission is that the contact was “for guidance,” without saying whether such guidance was given. It would be nice if someone in the media would follow up on such points.
May or may not be jesting, but my name isn’t Shirley. Nice clip.
Jon,
Schiff is the author of this nonsense. He put words in the whistleblower’s mouth and he installed whole sentences that didn’t exist in the transcript. Schiff is a desperate jerk that has always gotten away with this kind of nonsense with no limit to his obsession.
Regards,
Jim
Let’s assume insincere.
Basil & Skyler,
To me, it isn’t clear that Schiff can tell the difference between sincere & insincere or reality and his own obsession.
Regards,
Jim
That Schiff knew about the complaint almost a month in advance of it being revealed to the public was probably the worst-kept secret in Washington — including and especially by Adam Schiff. The speculation about that was all over the place this past weekend, even if it hadn’t been officially confirmed. So you’re right it wouldn’t be a shock if some outlet has done that, and Schiff fed the information to the Times to get the most sympathetic hearing possible.
If you’re trying to move the needle beyond the partisan divide, this is exactly how not to do it. My dog is more trainable than these guys.
Using a friendly news report is a good way to align the stories of a group of co-conspirators. This is how the pro’s do it.
Throughout the piece, the NYT gives the benefit of the doubt fully to Schiff and the Democrats, while assuming Trump is evil incarnate. It’s more of a press release than a news article.
This is one reason department Inspectors General were created. To give employees of an organization a place to air complaints or “concerns”. IGs are obligated to protect identities of people who come to them. IGs have more than sufficient power and authority to protect employees.
Of course I’d also like to point out a fact that’s gone unremarked. According to what I’ve read, this IG failed to comply with the law.
The DNI has final authority to determine if a complaint is valid and will be referred to Congress. In this case the DNI did not think this complaint was valid and thus should not be forwarded to Congress. And yet the IG sent it on.
Curiouser and curiouser.
The proper procedures were not followed, therefore the “whistleblower” blew his or her status as a whistleblower. So, either “failed whistleblower,” or “leaker.”
I thought the ICIG kept it, which started the whole stink, since Schiff knew it existed and what it was about. The ICIG blew it because he knows the law does not apply to Trump or anyone else outside of the IC. It should have been squashed immediately, but he is part of the scam.
Well, yes. Trump is an authoritarian, which is why we must elect someone who force everyone into a government health care program, institute federal rent control, ban fracking by executive action, and require the additional confiscation of personal property to fund health care and higher education for non-citizens. Because Justice and also The Planet and also boo Capitalism.
What’s most important is knowing in our hearts that when President Warren issues executive orders to federalize local police forces to ensure non-compliance with ICE writs and facilitate mandatory AR-15 buybacks, she will also tweet something reasonable and witty. Normalcy! What a relief.
This is just dastardly. The whole thing smells of another setup of the president of the United States. This a coup, that’s what it is. I hope the Dems pay a huge penalty at the ballot over this.
I cancelled my paper subscription to the NY Slimes some 18 years ago because of its bias. Two weeks ago on a whim I ventured to sign up for their daily emails of the news, it was free after all and I told myself at least I could see what they’re saying. After thirteen days, my stomach couldn’t take it any longer. I unsubscribed yesterday. To hell with that piece of crap.
No I don’t think one is evidence of the other. It’s not a crazy idea, but it doesn’t necessarily follow.
On the part of the NYT, there is also no evidence of whatever the accusation is, and in fairness they should have stated that too in the same way that they declare Trump’s speculation to be BS.
I tend to agree with this. This issue isn’t going to turn on semantics of whistle-blower vs leaker or on where this person first went with his “information”. That is all distraction and smokescreen. We should concentrate fire on the premise and not on the procedure. If we win on the premise then perhaps we can go back to finish off the merely wounded who are stuck in the procedure part of this.
If not personally, someone working for him or one of his colleagues did. Good observation!