Is anyone surprised House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff changed his mind about the whistleblower testifying before Congress?
I’m not and not only due to the phone call transcript between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The whistleblower’s claim is the crux of the impeachment inquiry. But since Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi launched the inquiry, the case has slowly crumbled at their feet.
Oh, and Schiff would have to answer a lot of questions as well.
- Trump Ukraine Transcript: Asked for Biden Review, But Made No Mention of Withholding Military Aid
- Adam Schiff Started Hearing With Fake Quotes From Trump, Ukrainian Transcript
- REPORT: Schiff Knew of Whistle-Blower Accusations Before Complaint Was Filed
- Report: “Whistle-blower” Failed to Disclose Contact with Rep. Schiff’s Staff or Intel Committee Staff
- Reports: Ukraine Whistleblower had a “Professional Relationship” With 2020 Democratic Candidate
- Ukraine President Zelensky: ‘No Blackmail’ in Phone Conversation With Trump
Could THIS be the main reason why Schiff wants Congress to avoid contact with the whistleblower? Report: Ukraine Whistleblower Worked With Biden When He was Vice President
On Face the Nation, anchor Margaret Brennan asked Schiff why he would even bring the whistleblower before Congress. Republicans and Democrats would like to ask the person many questions, but Brennan asked him why he should risk the person’s identity.
Schiff immediately latched onto the leading question. He agreed that both whistleblowers (I still only know of one) need protection. Brennan gave Schiff the perfect excuse:
REP. SCHIFF: Well our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected. Indeed, now there’s more than one whistleblower, that they are protected. And given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that. We do want to make sure that we identify other evidence that is pertinent to the withholding of the military support, the effort to cover this up by hiding this in a classified computer system. We want to make sure that we uncover the full details about the conditionality of either the military aid or that meeting with Ukraine’s president. It may not be necessary to take steps that might reveal the whistleblower’s identity to do that. And we’re going to make sure we protect that whistleblower.
Schiff also moved the goalposts on the inquiry because now Congress does not need that “quid pro quo” to impeach Trump. Without seeing the transcript, Democrats made up their minds that Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if Zelensky did not investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
REP. SCHIFF: First of all, there doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo, but it is clear already I think from the text messages that this meeting that the Ukraine president sought was being conditioned on their willingness to interfere in the U.S. election to help the president. That is a terrible abuse of the president’s power. Now whether that abuse goes further that is the withholding of military aid also as leverage. There’s certainly strong indications that that is true as well. And we’re going to get to the bottom of it. But here you have a president of the United States abusing his power to the detriment of our national security and doing so to get yet another foreign country to intervene in our election it’s hard to imagine more of a corruption of his office than that.
Since the transcript did not show that, the Democrats cling to the fact that Trump casually suggested Zelensky investigate Biden’s role in the firing of former prosecutor Viktor Shoklin.
I have no idea what transcript Schiff read, but Zelensky said he already found the matter important to him. Zelensky has also stated many times the Trump did not pressure or blackmail him.
Protected from what? From inquiry? From probing questions? From exposure of all the connections to Biden, the Obama administration and the deep state? Cross examination by Republicans?
But… but… quid pro quo was WHY the inquiry was begun in the first place. More “evidence” that gets suddenly blown away by ACTUAL evidence? In case Schiff isn’t aware, Zelensky restarted the investigation Biden had squashed back in February. Any calendar will tell you, that is BEFORE the July call.
Add to this Schiff explaining that he didn’t quite explain LYING about meeting with the “whistle blower” well enough. I’m sure he wants THOSE questions to go away as well.
Throughout this all, Trump has been the open and transparent person while the Democrats are who lie, hide and suppress. For three investigations, Trump provided all the documents, witnesses and testimony possible. Since those investigations did not turn up what the Democrats need to avoid seeing Trump in another election, then they open yet MORE investigations, expect Trump to did deeper and provide more personal and classified information for their fishing expeditions. Trump has drawn the line and is now FIGHTING as no other Republican ever would. And WINNING.
This begs the question is there a whistleblower? We have a statement written by attorneys that used to hand out whistles advertising their services. We have a form that indicates perjury as a box is checked first hand knowledge not just hearsay. Yes there are penalties for lying and spying. I dont think there is a whistle blower at all, just more deepstate spying on the President, the classified recordings provided to coup operatives that created a narrative. Even as we can read the transcript they stick to the lies.
There is no whistleblower, no such person exists, our White House has the phone lines tapped!.
This is espionage.
Hill, a former Soros employee, wasn’t even working at the White House when the phone call with Zelenzky took place. But, I guess she hates Trump, so she can qualify as a “witness”.
HOW do Democrats avoid feeling totally stupid in falling for this circus? Please explain.