The House Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday morning showed a number of instances where Democrats, led by Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, would simultaneously claim to not know the identity of the whistleblower but would shut down any Republican questions that may have led to information about the individual.
On several occasions, Ranking Member Devin Nunes or another Republican member would be engaged in a line of questioning with either of the witnesses, Office of the Vice President Special Advisor Jennifer Williams or Ukrainian specialist and former National Security Council advisor Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, before they would be cut off by Schiff.
Check it out:
Nunes: Did you discuss the July 25 call or July 26 call with anyone outside the White House?
Vindman: George Kent, and someone in the intelligence community I'm not going to name.
Schiff interrupts to "protect the whistleblower."
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 19, 2019
I feel like Schiff is in an old Hitchcock movie where at the end he realizes he was investigating himself the whole time… https://t.co/0LQLBVM7t7
— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) November 19, 2019
BREAKING: Vindman admits he leaked Trump’s call to an individual in the intel community. Schiff cuts him off and warns him to not out the whistleblower pic.twitter.com/A9opcmX1Ky
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 19, 2019
The Federalist reports Schiff was initially going to share the name of the whistleblower before his office changed their position and claimed to have never spoken with him. Schiff did this, according to the Federalist, because the whistleblower has deep anti-Trump beliefs:
Does the public have a right to know the name of the man who commenced the current effort to impeach the president of the United States? The Trump-hating media, following the lead of Trump-hating House Democrats, seems to think not. It seems they believe he should be held to a different standard than other whistleblowers.
Indeed, many legacy media refuse to run the presumed name of the so-called Ukraine whistleblower in spite of ample evidence as to his identity. Likewise, Twitter is trying to deter users from divulging his name by punishing select accounts that have done so. YouTube has similarly banned mentions of his name across their entire site.
Such entities appear to have fallen in line with Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the illegitimate impeachment inquiry. Schiff was prepared to give the complainant a public hearing before doing an abrupt about-face after it was revealed the congressman and his staff had coordinated with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being filed, and then lied about it.
— Advertisement —
The impeachment sham summed up:
Did you see anything? No
Did you hear anything? No
Were you there? No
Did you speak to anyone on the call? No
"Thank you for being an American hero.” – Adam Schiff
— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) November 19, 2019
Schiff colluded w/registered Dem CIA leaker ("whistleblower")
Schiff lied about his staff not speaking to leaker
Schiff still claims to not know who the leaker is, but magically can shut down questions about the leaker before they start
Democrats think you are stupid pic.twitter.com/AHKnJIUPwr
— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) November 19, 2019
According to the Federalist report, Democrats and mainstream media have a double standard for how they are treating the current, unidentified whistleblower:
First, contrary to the claims of some talking heads, there is nothing illegal about the media running this person’s name. It is only the ICIG who is barred from outing the whistleblower, pursuant to U.S.C. § 3033(g)(3)(A). Even the whistleblower’s lawyers acknowledge this by omission in a statement on protecting his identity.
Second, consider the contrast in media treatment of purported whistleblower Eric Ciaramella and that of Adam Lovinger, in context of the supposed desire to protect whistleblowers from reprisal, governmental or otherwise.
Based on the RealClearInvestigations report on Ciaramella, given his laundry list of anti-Trump bona fides and apparent connections to leaders in the national security and foreign policy apparatus, he would appear to be a proverbial “made man” of the deep state. It is hard to fathom at this point any circumstance in which he could be the subject of reprisal, which should allay any media fears.
If Adam Schiff and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman don’t know who the whistleblower is, how would they know that naming the person that LTC Vindman spoke to in the intelligence community would out the whistleblower? pic.twitter.com/a3GUvpfE50
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 19, 2019
🚨HOLY SMOKES 🚨
This exact moment is when we know the impeachment hearings are a farce:
Schiff, Vindman: We do not know the identity of the whistleblower
GOP: So how will you know if we name him?
Schiff, Vindman: STOP ASKING QUESTIONS! HE'S A GREAT GUY. IT HURTS HIS FEELINGS pic.twitter.com/6Fn0n5dzO4
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) November 19, 2019