Why Didn’t The Whistleblower Disclose The Schiff Contact

It would appear that desperate Democrats are using the same deceptive worn-out strategy they attempted during the Russian Collusion hoax.

Then the INTEL turncoats attempted to take down President Trump by using a discredited dossier that they presented to the FISA Court, never disclosing that the fraudulent document was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign.

YOU MIGHT LIKE
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Friday we found out that the so-called whistleblower didn’t tell Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson that he personally contacted the office of Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff’s office “before” filing a complaint, which under the rules governing the “Whistleblower Protection Act” is required under “penalty of perjury.”

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge first reported that Atkinson said that the whistleblower did not disclose having contact with Schiff’s office, and so he did not investigate the matter further.

Shannon Bream host of “Fox News at Night” followed up after Herridge’s report Friday evening with a post confirming the breaking news.

“Per Catherine Herridge: IC Inspector General told lawmakers the whistleblower did not disclose contact w Schiff/Committee staff – so IG never looked into it. IG “had no knowledge of it”.

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 4, 2019

As of this writing, it’s still not clear what potential liability exists for the whistleblower in not disclosing his contact with Schiff’s office. For example, would the Inspector General have deemed the complaint “urgent” and “credible” after investigating the complaint for two weeks, knowing that politics may have played a much bigger hand in the whistleblower’s complaint after meeting with members of Schiff’s staff?

Schiff also misled Atkinson by not coming forward claiming that he had no personal knowledge of the whistleblower’s complaint, when in fact the whistleblower reached out to an aide on the House Intelligence Committee who then advised and provided the whistleblower with the names of several attorneys.

Moreover, the whistleblower guidelines are clear, in that deception and or failing to disclose who the whistleblower contacted including other inspectors general or members of Congress, “before” filing a complaint is considered a serious violation of the “Whistleblower Protection Act.”

The IC IG did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An attorney for the whistleblower also did not reply.

The President has concluded all along that this is simply another political witch hunt by desperate Democrats coordinating with a deep-state INTEL leaker disguised as a whistleblower, filing secondhand knowledge of the President’s conversation, perhaps never dreaming that the President would declassify the actual conversation between himself and his Ukrainian counterpart.

On Sept. 17th, Schiff said in an interview on MSNBC that “we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.”

Adding, “We would love to talk directly with the whistleblower.” These statements have since proven false.

Schiff spokesman Patrick Boland confirmed to The Times that the whistleblower contacted the committee before filing the complaint, but said that the committee did not see the complaint before it was filed.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance.”

However, the breaking news on Friday reveals the true motive behind the whistleblower’s complaint. Willfully keeping Atkinson in the dark regarding his meeting with Schiff’s staff, similar to what rogue agents within the FBI and CIA did to those FISA Judges, fraudulently obtaining warrants by hiding the fact that the discredited dossier was a fabrication by the Clinton Campaign to spy on the Trump Campaign.

Under 18 U.S. Code 1621: “Any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright Stella Management 2018, all rights reserved