Last Bit of Whistleblower’s Credibility Just Flew the Coop

As the investigation into Trump’s Ukrainian phone call continues, we are finding less and less reason to believe that the whistleblower who brought it to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is a credible source at all. And it seems that Schiff himself even believes this to some degree, as he is now saying that the whistleblower might not need to testify at all.

Schiff announced on “Face the Nation” this week, “Well, our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected.”

And he added, “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.”

He ended by saying that it might 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.”

Now, understandably, any person in the whistleblower’s situation, as a person who supposedly has evidence that could cause the impeachment of a sitting president, needs protection. And putting him/her on the stand might jeopardize their safety.

However, upon looking at several facts that have come to light as of late, it seems there are other reasons Schiff wouldn’t want this individual to actually tell their part of the story.

The first is the fact that there is proof the whistleblower contacted Schiff’s office before the actual report was filed. For intended purposes, this gives everyone the idea that Schiff was not as unaware of the situation as he claimed to be. And secondly, that it seems like there is some sort of bias going on.

Rather than someone spontaneously coming forward with a report, we now have someone going to Schiff first and then filing. Schiff’s office has confirmed that they not only spoke to this individual and told them to file an official report, but they also counseled him/her on who to hire as their attorney for the case, namely a certain former Obama aid.

And initially, Schiff lied about it. he told the press during an interview that “we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” But when it was found that his office had spoken with the person in question, he changed his statement and that he meant that he personally, did “not know the identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the whistleblower or their counsel.” Furthermore, he said that “we” referred to the House Intelligence Committee members and not his staff.

Right.

If that sounds a little fishy, just wait. It gets better.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) has also noted that the whistleblower actually worked for Joe Biden for a time and possibly even traveled to Ukraine with the former Vice President, during the time in question.

But now we even a third reason to believe this was just a scam.

Fox News reported late on Wednesday, “The whistleblower at the center of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry acknowledged to the Intelligence Community Inspector General that bias against President Trump might be alleged against him or her for a third, previously unreported reason, sources familiar with the ICIG investigation tell Fox News.”

And now for the kicker, “Fox News has previously reported the whistleblower is a registered Democrat and had a prior work history with a senior Democrat.”

“Though Fox News has learned that an additional element of possible bias was identified by the whistleblower, its nature remains unclear.”

As a result of these inconsistencies and newfound biases, Republicans are requesting a public and much more open investigation to begin. A few of them even sent a letter to Representative Schiff on Wednesday, demanding the whistleblower’s testimony. If the tables were turned, liberals would have made that a must weeks ago.

Three ranking GOP congressmen – Devin Nunes of California, Jim Jordan from Ohio, and Michael McCaul of Texas – reminded Schiff that several inconsistencies have been noted during the investigation, including the fact that the whistleblower’s complaint doesn’t line up with the recorded call’s transcript as well as the fact that bipartisan precedent set by past impeachment inquiries have been ignored.

Therefore, they wrote, “we expect for you to arrange for the Committees to receive the testimony of the employees and all individuals he or she relied upon in formulating the August 12th complaint.”

Suffice it say: We must hear the truth, and you can bet there will be consequences if we don’t.