All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2021 - Epoch Times
09:36
Truth and Lies: Adam Schiff and the Whistleblower Complaint | The Larry Elder Show
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
First, Adam Schiff read a fictionalized version of the president's phone call to the president of Ukraine.
The essence of what the president communicates.
We've been very good to your country.
Very good.
No other country has done as much as we have.
But you know what?
I don't see much reciprocity here.
I hear what you want.
I have a favor I want from you, though.
And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good.
I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent.
Understand lots of it.
On this and on that, I'm going to put you in touch with people, and not just any people.
I'm going to put you in touch with Attorney General of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr.
He's got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.
And I'm going to put you in touch with Rudy.
You're going to love him, trust me.
You know what I'm asking, and so I'm only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways.
And by the way, don't call me again.
I'll call you when you've done what I asked.
This is, in sum, in character, what the president was trying to communicate.
Even George Stephanopoulos, a.k.a.
George Clintonopoulos, was surprised.
That was you putting, I mean, making up dialogue, putting it in the president's mouth.
If the facts are as damning as you say, why make up dialogue for dramatic effect, even if it's a parody, as you say?
Well, George, you're right.
The call speaks for itself and it is plenty damning.
But let's not pretend that this is really what the president is upset with me about.
At least one American was not amused.
Hey, so why did you lie to Congress and the committee the other day on TV? Why did you make it up?
It doesn't matter.
When I'm at home, I'm at home to watch.
Why don't you just tell the truth when you're on TV? About Trump, huh?
You gotta lie about it?
Now, Adam Schiff says, we had no contact with the whistleblower.
But, both the New York Times and the Washington Post say that the whistleblower contacted a staff member to the intel committee before filing the complaint.
Apparently, the whistleblower was seeking guidance.
Just to be clear, you don't know who this alleged whistleblower is or what they are alleging?
I don't know the identity of the whistleblower.
And they haven't contacted you or their legal representation hasn't contacted you?
I don't want to get into any...
I want to make sure that there's nothing that I do that jeopardizes the whistleblower in any way.
That is known as a non-answer answer.
No follow-up by the hard-hitting Anderson Cooper.
So let's take another shot at it.
Adam Schiff, did you or any member of your staff had contact with the whistleblower prior to the whistleblower filing the complaint with the IG? Have you heard from the whistleblower?
Do you want to hear from the whistleblower?
What protections could you provide to the whistleblower?
We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.
We would like to, but I'm sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, We have not spoken to the whistleblower.
Here's what the Washington Post fact checker said about that assertion.
That 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.
End of quote.
Quote, flat out false.
End of quote.
Well, turns out the whistleblower did, in fact, have contact with a staffer with the intel committee prior to filing the IG report.
Now, how does Adam Schiff explain this away?
Well, a staff member to Adam Schiff says, well, when Schiff said we, he meant, you know, all of us, all together, the full committee, you know, everybody all in one room together.
Even an NBC reporter ain't buying it.
Look at this tweet.
Deceptive, I'll say, but Schiff was just warming up.
In the absence of the actions, and I want to thank the Inspector General, in the absence of his actions and coming to our committee, we might not have even known there was a whistleblower complaint alleging an urgent concern.
Say what?
Schiff says, but for the IG, we never would have learned about the whistleblower?
Back to the Washington Post fact checker.
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.
End of quote.
One more thing.
It appears that prior to the whistleblower's complaint, the requirement that a whistleblower have to have first-hand knowledge was removed.
And in the complaint, the whistleblower admits that he or she does not have direct first-hand knowledge.
Quote, I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.
End of quote.
Well, was the whistleblower complaint procedure changed from that requiring first-hand knowledge to no longer requiring first-hand knowledge?
The changes to eliminate the requirement for first-hand information and whistleblower complaints happened between May 2018 and August 2019.
And it used to be required that you had to offer direct, personal, first-hand evidence or else this particular complaint, which is known as an urgent concern complaint, Would be dismissed by the intelligence community inspector general.
And that was changed sometime in the last year.
And when we asked the DNI and the ICIG for information on who changed it when and why, they straight up refused to answer that question.
And this apparent rule change prompted this letter from Republican leaders.
Based on the language on the May 24, 2018 form, it appears that the requirement for first-hand information has been an Intelligence Committee Inspector General policy regardless of how a whistleblower makes an urgent concern report.
Curiously, the Urgent Disclosure form now appears on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence website has recently changed And no longer contains this explicit firsthand information requirement.
The timing of the removal of the firsthand information requirement raises questions about potential connections to this whistleblower's complaint.
This timing, along with numerous apparent leaks of classified information about the contents of this complaint, also raise questions about potential criminality in the handling of these matters." Now the IG issued a statement saying, there was no rule change.
There was never any requirement that a whistleblower's complaint need to be based upon first-hand knowledge.
Here's what they said.
Although the form requests information about whether the complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging a complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute.
In fact, by law, the complainant need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern.
The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law.
But check out this excerpt from their own informational sheet.
In order to find an urgent concern credible, the ICIG must be in possession of reliable firsthand information.
If you think wrongdoing took place but cannot provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, the ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.
End of quote.
Finally, as to Schiff's assertion that he, we, they had no contact with the whistleblower prior to the whistleblower's complaint, here's what the Washington Post fact checker said.
But Schiff on mourning 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.
Crikey!
Four Pinocchios?
That's as worse as it gets!
Four!
Like I said, four!
The question is Frau Helm, were you lying then?
Are you lying now?
Or are you not in fact a chronic and habitual liar?
▲
Export Selection