Schiff’s false claim his committee had not spoken to the whistleblower
Oct. 4, 2019 at 1:00 a.m. MDT
But
politicians spin all across Washington, often to deflect uncomfortable
facts. Now let’s look at comments by Schiff, who is heading the
impeachment inquiry, as reporters probed about the whistleblower before
the details of the allegation were revealed.
politicians spin all across Washington, often to deflect uncomfortable
facts. Now let’s look at comments by Schiff, who is heading the
impeachment inquiry, as reporters probed about the whistleblower before
the details of the allegation were revealed.
Schiff’s answers are especially interesting in the wake of reports in the New York Times and The Washington Post
that the whistleblower approached a House Intelligence Committee staff
member for guidance before filing a complaint with the Intelligence
Community inspector general. The staff member learned the “very bare
contours” of the allegation that Trump has abused the powers of his
office, The Post said.
that the whistleblower approached a House Intelligence Committee staff
member for guidance before filing a complaint with the Intelligence
Community inspector general. The staff member learned the “very bare
contours” of the allegation that Trump has abused the powers of his
office, The Post said.
When the Fact Checker asked what “bare contours” meant, a committee spokesman pointed to an exchange of letters. In a Sept. 13 letter
to the committee, the general counsel of the director of national
intelligence said that “complaint involves confidential and potentially
privileged communications by persons outside the Intelligence
Community.” In his own letter
that day, Schiff wrote that because of that language, and because the
DNI refused to affirm or deny that White House officials were involved
in the decision not to forward the complaint, the committee can conclude
only that “the serious misconduct involves the president of the United
States and/or other senior White House or administration officials.”
to the committee, the general counsel of the director of national
intelligence said that “complaint involves confidential and potentially
privileged communications by persons outside the Intelligence
Community.” In his own letter
that day, Schiff wrote that because of that language, and because the
DNI refused to affirm or deny that White House officials were involved
in the decision not to forward the complaint, the committee can conclude
only that “the serious misconduct involves the president of the United
States and/or other senior White House or administration officials.”
Our
suspicion is that the unidentified staff member learned the potential
complaint involved “privileged” communication, which is code for
something having to do with the president.
suspicion is that the unidentified staff member learned the potential
complaint involved “privileged” communication, which is code for
something having to do with the president.
So,
with this new information, let’s look back at how Schiff handled
questions about his knowledge of the whistleblower complaint.
with this new information, let’s look back at how Schiff handled
questions about his knowledge of the whistleblower complaint.
The Facts
Sept. 16, interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN
Cooper: “Just to be clear, you don’t know who this alleged whistleblower is or what they are alleging?”Schiff: “I don’t know the identity of the whistleblower.”Cooper: “And they haven’t contacted you or their legal representation hasn’t contacted you?”Schiff:
“I don’t want to get into any particulars. I want to make sure that
there’s nothing that I do that jeopardizes the whistleblower in any
way.”
This
is a classic dodge — “don’t want to get into any particulars” — and
Cooper failed to follow up. Notice how Schiff quickly answered whether
he knew the identity of the whistleblower — “I don’t know” — but then
sidestepped the questions about whether the committee had been
contacted. But in doing so, he managed not to mislead; he just simply
did not answer the question.
is a classic dodge — “don’t want to get into any particulars” — and
Cooper failed to follow up. Notice how Schiff quickly answered whether
he knew the identity of the whistleblower — “I don’t know” — but then
sidestepped the questions about whether the committee had been
contacted. But in doing so, he managed not to mislead; he just simply
did not answer the question.
Sept. 17, interview on “Morning Joe”
Sam
Stein: “Have you heard from the whistleblower? Do you want to hear from
the whistleblower? What protections could you provide to the
whistleblower?” …Schiff: “We have not spoken
directly with the whistleblower. We would like to. But I am sure the
whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law
requires, by the inspector general or the director of national
Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and
so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.”
This
is flat-out false. Unlike the quick two-step dance he performed with
Anderson Cooper, Schiff simply says the committee had not spoken to the
whistleblower. Now we know that’s not true.
is flat-out false. Unlike the quick two-step dance he performed with
Anderson Cooper, Schiff simply says the committee had not spoken to the
whistleblower. Now we know that’s not true.
“Regarding
Chairman Schiff’s comments on ‘Morning Joe,’ in the context, he
intended to answer the question of whether the Committee had heard
testimony from the whistleblower, which they had not,” a committee
spokesman told The Fact Checker. “As he said in his answer, the
whistleblower was then awaiting instructions from the Acting DNI as to
how the whistleblower could contact the Committee. Nonetheless he
acknowledges that his statement should have been more carefully phrased
to make that distinction clear.”
Chairman Schiff’s comments on ‘Morning Joe,’ in the context, he
intended to answer the question of whether the Committee had heard
testimony from the whistleblower, which they had not,” a committee
spokesman told The Fact Checker. “As he said in his answer, the
whistleblower was then awaiting instructions from the Acting DNI as to
how the whistleblower could contact the Committee. Nonetheless he
acknowledges that his statement should have been more carefully phrased
to make that distinction clear.”
The spokesman pointed to an interview with Schiff by the Daily Beast,
in which he said that he “did not know definitively at the time if the
complaint had been authored by the same whistleblower who had approached
his staff.” But he added that he “should have been much more clear.”
in which he said that he “did not know definitively at the time if the
complaint had been authored by the same whistleblower who had approached
his staff.” But he added that he “should have been much more clear.”
Sept. 19, meeting with reporters at the Capitol
Schiff:
“In the absence of the actions, and I want to thank the inspector
general, in the absence of his actions in coming to our committee, we
might not have even known there was a whistleblower complaint alleging
an urgent concern.”
Here’s
some more dissembling. Schiff says that if not for the IG, the
committee might never have known about the complaint. But his committee
knew that something explosive was going to be filed with the IG. As the
New York Times put it, the initial inquiry received by the committee
“also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the
Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.”
some more dissembling. Schiff says that if not for the IG, the
committee might never have known about the complaint. But his committee
knew that something explosive was going to be filed with the IG. As the
New York Times put it, the initial inquiry received by the committee
“also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the
Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.”
Schiff,
however, does qualify that this was a complaint alleging “an urgent
concern,” and it’s not clear whether the initial inquiry had tipped off
the committee staff that it would rise to that level. Still, Schiff’s
phrasing was misleading because he gives no hint that the committee was
aware a potentially significant (“privileged”) complaint might have been
filed.
however, does qualify that this was a complaint alleging “an urgent
concern,” and it’s not clear whether the initial inquiry had tipped off
the committee staff that it would rise to that level. Still, Schiff’s
phrasing was misleading because he gives no hint that the committee was
aware a potentially significant (“privileged”) complaint might have been
filed.
“As
Chairman Schiff has made clear, he does not know the identity of the
whistleblower, has had no communication with them or their attorney, and
did not view the whistleblower’s complaint until the day prior to the
hearing with the DNI when the ODNI finally provided it to the
Committee,” the spokesman said. “Whistleblowers frequently come to the
committee. Some whistleblowers approach the IG without notice to the
Committee, and some who do go to the IG do not necessarily file a
complaint. However, this was the first whistleblower complaint provided
to the Committee this year that the IC IG determined to be of ‘urgent
concern’ and ‘credible,’ and Chairman Schiff would have raised the alarm
regardless when it was illegally withheld.”
Chairman Schiff has made clear, he does not know the identity of the
whistleblower, has had no communication with them or their attorney, and
did not view the whistleblower’s complaint until the day prior to the
hearing with the DNI when the ODNI finally provided it to the
Committee,” the spokesman said. “Whistleblowers frequently come to the
committee. Some whistleblowers approach the IG without notice to the
Committee, and some who do go to the IG do not necessarily file a
complaint. However, this was the first whistleblower complaint provided
to the Committee this year that the IC IG determined to be of ‘urgent
concern’ and ‘credible,’ and Chairman Schiff would have raised the alarm
regardless when it was illegally withheld.”
The
spokesman added: “The focus should not be on the whistleblower, but
rather the complaint which the IC IG determined was credible and urgent
and which has been thus far confirmed by the call record released by the
White House and statements by the President and his personal attorney.”
spokesman added: “The focus should not be on the whistleblower, but
rather the complaint which the IC IG determined was credible and urgent
and which has been thus far confirmed by the call record released by the
White House and statements by the President and his personal attorney.”
The Pinocchio Test
There
are right ways and wrong ways to answer reporters’ questions if a
politician wants to maintain his or her credibility. There’s nothing
wrong with dodging a question, as long as you don’t try to mislead (as
Pompeo did).
are right ways and wrong ways to answer reporters’ questions if a
politician wants to maintain his or her credibility. There’s nothing
wrong with dodging a question, as long as you don’t try to mislead (as
Pompeo did).
But
Schiff on “Morning Joe” clearly made a statement that was false. He now
says he was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he
should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by
telling reporters a few days later that if not for the IG’s office, the
committee would not have known about the complaint. That again
suggested there had been no prior communication.
Schiff on “Morning Joe” clearly made a statement that was false. He now
says he was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he
should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by
telling reporters a few days later that if not for the IG’s office, the
committee would not have known about the complaint. That again
suggested there had been no prior communication.
The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity.
Schiff earns Four Pinocchios.
No comments:
Post a Comment