‘Protect The Whistleblower’: Chairman Schiff Does Not Allow Witnesses To Answer GOP Question

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:

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.

— Advertisement —

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.

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.



  1. This is the right weblog for everyone who is hopes to check out this topic. You already know a lot its practically challenging to argue along (not too I really would want…HaHa). You definitely put a fresh spin over a topic thats been discussing for some time. Excellent stuff, just fantastic!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here