HERRIDGE: ‘Whistleblower’ did not initially disclose Schiff meeting to ICIG; also wants to avoid ‘political show’

Catherine Herridge, now with CBS News, is reporting today that the phony whistleblower did not initially disclose his meeting with Schiff’s team to the inspector general for the intelligence community, even though the complaint form specifically asked for such disclosures. Two months later in October however, the whistleblower finally admitted to the ICIG that he’d had such contact with Team Schiff:

CBS NEWS – CBS News has reviewed documents that show the anonymous whistleblower reached out to the intelligence community watchdog on October 8 to clarify the nature of his or her contact with Democratic majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee before the complaint was filed.

The whistleblower acknowledged reaching out to the committee, but claimed that nothing substantial was discussed and that the staff member directed them to go through official channels, according to the “Memorandum of Investigative Activity,” provided to House and Senate Intelligence Committee leadership by intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) Michael Atkinson. The form is dated October 18 and documents the October 8 outreach by the whistleblower.

According to the document, the whistleblower reported to the ICIG investigator that the committee staffer advised: “‘Do it right, hire a lawyer, and contact the ICIG.’ So that is what the COMPLAINANT did. At the time, COMPLAINANT did not even know what the ICIG was.”

The whistleblower felt that “[b]ased on getting guidance on a procedural question, and that no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed, COMPLAINANT did not feel, based on the way the form question was worded, that it was necessary to check that box.”

“That box” refers to the whistleblower disclosure form, which requires a detailed accounting of who is aware of the complaint. The box for “Congress or congressional committee(s)” was left blank by the whistleblower.

On October 2, the New York Times first reported that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff had “learned about the outlines” of the whistleblower’s concerns before the complaint was submitted to the ICIG, citing a spokesman, as well as current and former American officials.

Only after it was revealed in the New York Times that the phony whistleblower had met with Team Schiff did he admit to the ICIG that he’d had such a meeting. And even then it took him six days to do it. Sounds to me like the Whistleblower and Team Schiff needed time to get their stories straight.

Herridge also reports on the whistleblower’s rationale for not testifying in person to the House or Senate committees:

Separately, on the issue of potential congressional testimony, the whistleblower expressed a preference for written questions from the Senate or House Intelligence Committees. According to the records, the whistleblower “does not wish to testify in person” and “does not believe there was any point for him/her to come forward given all that has come out in the news. He/she is not interested in being part of a political show.”

The whistleblower, according to the ICIG, believed that “much of the information provided by him/her at the time of the urgent concern disclosure has now been overcome by more detailed information coming out in the press, or recent text message releases, which are beyond his/her original knowledge. Some of the dates of information being disclosed in the news do not match up with Complainant’s urgent concern disclosure.”

Oh please! There’s no way I’m buying this ‘political show’ nonsense. The phony whistleblower, who’s been reported to be Eric Ciaramella, is just trying to maintain the semblance of ‘whistleblower integrity’ when we all know this was nothing but a partisan attack on Trump. And he doesn’t want to testify before the committees because he doesn’t want to answer the tough questions that come with such a partisan attack.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.