Why it is a big deal whether or not Adam Schiff talked to the whistleblower?Has the media reevaluated Schiff's statements in light of the fact there was a second whistleblower?Executive actions and federal department regulationsAre there protections in place for NSA whistleblowers, and have they ever been used to protect anyone?In the U.S., why are most bills that reach the floor for debate in Congress not controversial?Why is the Supreme Court not balanced in terms of their political views?Does Donald Trump's reelection filing create a different legal atmosphere for him and for nonprofit organizations?The US has done lots of Quantitative Easing, so why does it not do the same for its debt?
Why does Principal Vagina say, "no relation" after introducing himself?
Why is Trump releasing (or not) his tax returns such a big deal?
How do I remove 'None' items from the end of a list in Python
Can a Pokemon that I tried to capture from field research run away?
How does a ball bearing door hinge work?
What is the gold linker?
On notice period - coworker I need to train is giving me the silent treatment
How to balance combat for a duet campaign with non-frontliner classes?
How do I get my boyfriend to remove pictures of his ex girlfriend hanging in his apartment?
Advisor asked for my entire slide presentation so she could give the presentation at an international conference
What would be the effect of a giant magical fireball burning in the ocean?
Why is my paper "under review" if it contains no results?
Trade a bishop in the opening
How do I count the number of elements in a list which are between two determined values?
Does Darwin owe a debt to Hegel?
Drawing a sequence of circles
What fantasy book has twins (except one's blue) and a cloaked ice bear on the cover?
Why it is a big deal whether or not Adam Schiff talked to the whistleblower?
I am often given, occasionally stolen, rarely sold, and never borrowed
Why do Computer Science degrees contain a high proportion of mathematics?
Hebrew Vowels change the word
Idiom for a situation or event that makes one poor or even poorer?
I need an automatic way of making a lot of numbered folders
Making the sound of 'th' in 'with'
Why it is a big deal whether or not Adam Schiff talked to the whistleblower?
Has the media reevaluated Schiff's statements in light of the fact there was a second whistleblower?Executive actions and federal department regulationsAre there protections in place for NSA whistleblowers, and have they ever been used to protect anyone?In the U.S., why are most bills that reach the floor for debate in Congress not controversial?Why is the Supreme Court not balanced in terms of their political views?Does Donald Trump's reelection filing create a different legal atmosphere for him and for nonprofit organizations?The US has done lots of Quantitative Easing, so why does it not do the same for its debt?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
I'm wondering why the news media focuses on the problem of whether or not Adam Schiff talked to the whistleblower before filing the complaint or not such as this.
I would appreciate it if somebody could explain it.
united-states donald-trump impeachment whistleblowers
add a comment
|
I'm wondering why the news media focuses on the problem of whether or not Adam Schiff talked to the whistleblower before filing the complaint or not such as this.
I would appreciate it if somebody could explain it.
united-states donald-trump impeachment whistleblowers
I wonder if he might have felt that to protect the whistleblower it could be a case of justified deception, in that otherwise the whistleblower might be publicly or privately identified before that whistleblower was ready.
– Mark Rogers
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
I'm wondering why the news media focuses on the problem of whether or not Adam Schiff talked to the whistleblower before filing the complaint or not such as this.
I would appreciate it if somebody could explain it.
united-states donald-trump impeachment whistleblowers
I'm wondering why the news media focuses on the problem of whether or not Adam Schiff talked to the whistleblower before filing the complaint or not such as this.
I would appreciate it if somebody could explain it.
united-states donald-trump impeachment whistleblowers
united-states donald-trump impeachment whistleblowers
edited 3 hours ago
William Jockusch
2,1141 gold badge4 silver badges16 bronze badges
2,1141 gold badge4 silver badges16 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Alone ProgrammerAlone Programmer
4061 gold badge4 silver badges16 bronze badges
4061 gold badge4 silver badges16 bronze badges
I wonder if he might have felt that to protect the whistleblower it could be a case of justified deception, in that otherwise the whistleblower might be publicly or privately identified before that whistleblower was ready.
– Mark Rogers
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
I wonder if he might have felt that to protect the whistleblower it could be a case of justified deception, in that otherwise the whistleblower might be publicly or privately identified before that whistleblower was ready.
– Mark Rogers
6 hours ago
I wonder if he might have felt that to protect the whistleblower it could be a case of justified deception, in that otherwise the whistleblower might be publicly or privately identified before that whistleblower was ready.
– Mark Rogers
6 hours ago
I wonder if he might have felt that to protect the whistleblower it could be a case of justified deception, in that otherwise the whistleblower might be publicly or privately identified before that whistleblower was ready.
– Mark Rogers
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
On Trump-leaning side of the media, it's taken as evidence of some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump. Trump himself claimed that Schiff "helped write" the whistleblower's complaint. This has been repeated by pro-Trump media personalities like Tucker Carlson, although even Carlson only presented the collaborative writing bit as "credible rumours"; but Carlson nevertheless claimed that Schiff "orchestrated" the whole thing "in secret". Similarly, Hannity said that the impeachment effort was "totally based on the whistleblower complaint that the shifty Schiff himself had a hand in creating, clearly." (Carlson and Hannity are two Fox News hosts/personalities with a big audience.)
On the other side, it was more of an issue that Schiff wasn't exactly transparent about those contacts, at least initially. And that was seen as a problem because procedural issues can provide ammunition to the pro-Trump side. As CNN put it
for Schiff, there is no room for error. Every move he makes, every word he utters, is scrutinized by Republicans and combed for mistakes -- however minor.
1
I downvoted because in the first paragraph you dismiss Republicans’ concerns as “some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump” but then spend the next 3 essentially arguing that it’s some big Republican conspiracy to bring down Schiff. Maybe I should upvote because it’s unintentionally ironic? Either way, it doesn’t answer the OP’s question.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: if you think my answer is biased against Trump, you should the other one (by Polo)... Also, you can/should write your own answer, since you seem to think I've missed the big picture entirely. I'm guessing that means you know what that big picture should be.
– Fizz
6 hours ago
I think I will when I have more time. But even if you disagree with Republicans’ characterization, you should at least articulate it and then you can pay a personal nod to why you think it’s bogus. We should all strive to be more neutral with our answers in this hyperpartisan age.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: do you really want me add "shifty Schiff" to my post? Is that going to make it more balance in your view?
– Fizz
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
First of all, Schiff never spoke to the whistleblower. At one point he stated that they (his committee) didn't have a conversation with that individual. In the context of questioning the individual they knew was a whistleblower about what was deemed to be a legitimate and credible complaint, that is accurate.
However, early on in the process, the whistleblower did contact his office with concerns, and asked for guidance on what to do. They advised that individual to get an attorney, and to follow the internal procedures for filing a complaint for the IG to evaluate. The staff person who took the call mentioned the broad outlines of the call to Schiff.
The previous Chair, the GOP's Devin Nunes said that they get dozens of these kinds of inquiries every year. There is nothing to indicate that this was handled in any way differently than the many other general inquiries they receive and have to deal with.
When Schiff dismissed the idea that they had specific, substantive discussions about the complaint with the person filing the complaint, he used much more general and broad language than that.
Is it an actual big deal? No. Because that kind of a very general referral to lodge the complaint with another entity, by the book, in no way would prejudice or allow Schiff or the Democrats to manipulate or manage the process. In the political and PR arena, does "actual" matter? Not as much as appearances, so he did give a window for people to claim/spin that he wasn't being candid.
However, pretty much everything in the complaint so far has mapped to what actually happened, to the point where the Trump Administration has confirmed those details while claiming them to be inaccurate, and that means that they need to muddy the waters. By casting rather weak and baseless claims about a corrupted process or a rigged system, they are hoping to de-legitimize the very serious matter of impeachment by claiming it is a political charade instead of a legitimate checking of an abuse of power and office of the President.
We don't know if the two spoke or not. We do know what various people said did or didn't happen.
– William Jockusch
3 hours ago
While I like this answer, it would benefit from some references, considering how contentious the topic is.
– Arcanist Lupus
25 mins ago
add a comment
|
In the context of impeachment, something is a big deal if the voters think it is. The voters, after all, have the power to re-elect both the President and the Congress, or not. So their opinions matter. Something that swings even 1% of voters one way or the other is likely to change the results of some elections and could even swing the 2020 Presidency.
Schiff says there was no direct communication. If this is proven to be a lie, it will reflect poorly on the Democrats.
The Politifact piece looks to me like evidence that there was communication, but not necessarily direct communication. Thus Schiff's statement may be true (they didn't speak directly) yet also leaving out important context (they could be acting as part of a coordinated plan without direct communication). Obviously each voter will decide for themselves what to make of that, but one suspects that some won't like it.
About that fact checking (and pinocchios awarded to Schiff) see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46342/…
– Fizz
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f46475%2fwhy-it-is-a-big-deal-whether-or-not-adam-schiff-talked-to-the-whistleblower%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
On Trump-leaning side of the media, it's taken as evidence of some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump. Trump himself claimed that Schiff "helped write" the whistleblower's complaint. This has been repeated by pro-Trump media personalities like Tucker Carlson, although even Carlson only presented the collaborative writing bit as "credible rumours"; but Carlson nevertheless claimed that Schiff "orchestrated" the whole thing "in secret". Similarly, Hannity said that the impeachment effort was "totally based on the whistleblower complaint that the shifty Schiff himself had a hand in creating, clearly." (Carlson and Hannity are two Fox News hosts/personalities with a big audience.)
On the other side, it was more of an issue that Schiff wasn't exactly transparent about those contacts, at least initially. And that was seen as a problem because procedural issues can provide ammunition to the pro-Trump side. As CNN put it
for Schiff, there is no room for error. Every move he makes, every word he utters, is scrutinized by Republicans and combed for mistakes -- however minor.
1
I downvoted because in the first paragraph you dismiss Republicans’ concerns as “some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump” but then spend the next 3 essentially arguing that it’s some big Republican conspiracy to bring down Schiff. Maybe I should upvote because it’s unintentionally ironic? Either way, it doesn’t answer the OP’s question.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: if you think my answer is biased against Trump, you should the other one (by Polo)... Also, you can/should write your own answer, since you seem to think I've missed the big picture entirely. I'm guessing that means you know what that big picture should be.
– Fizz
6 hours ago
I think I will when I have more time. But even if you disagree with Republicans’ characterization, you should at least articulate it and then you can pay a personal nod to why you think it’s bogus. We should all strive to be more neutral with our answers in this hyperpartisan age.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: do you really want me add "shifty Schiff" to my post? Is that going to make it more balance in your view?
– Fizz
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
On Trump-leaning side of the media, it's taken as evidence of some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump. Trump himself claimed that Schiff "helped write" the whistleblower's complaint. This has been repeated by pro-Trump media personalities like Tucker Carlson, although even Carlson only presented the collaborative writing bit as "credible rumours"; but Carlson nevertheless claimed that Schiff "orchestrated" the whole thing "in secret". Similarly, Hannity said that the impeachment effort was "totally based on the whistleblower complaint that the shifty Schiff himself had a hand in creating, clearly." (Carlson and Hannity are two Fox News hosts/personalities with a big audience.)
On the other side, it was more of an issue that Schiff wasn't exactly transparent about those contacts, at least initially. And that was seen as a problem because procedural issues can provide ammunition to the pro-Trump side. As CNN put it
for Schiff, there is no room for error. Every move he makes, every word he utters, is scrutinized by Republicans and combed for mistakes -- however minor.
1
I downvoted because in the first paragraph you dismiss Republicans’ concerns as “some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump” but then spend the next 3 essentially arguing that it’s some big Republican conspiracy to bring down Schiff. Maybe I should upvote because it’s unintentionally ironic? Either way, it doesn’t answer the OP’s question.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: if you think my answer is biased against Trump, you should the other one (by Polo)... Also, you can/should write your own answer, since you seem to think I've missed the big picture entirely. I'm guessing that means you know what that big picture should be.
– Fizz
6 hours ago
I think I will when I have more time. But even if you disagree with Republicans’ characterization, you should at least articulate it and then you can pay a personal nod to why you think it’s bogus. We should all strive to be more neutral with our answers in this hyperpartisan age.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: do you really want me add "shifty Schiff" to my post? Is that going to make it more balance in your view?
– Fizz
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
On Trump-leaning side of the media, it's taken as evidence of some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump. Trump himself claimed that Schiff "helped write" the whistleblower's complaint. This has been repeated by pro-Trump media personalities like Tucker Carlson, although even Carlson only presented the collaborative writing bit as "credible rumours"; but Carlson nevertheless claimed that Schiff "orchestrated" the whole thing "in secret". Similarly, Hannity said that the impeachment effort was "totally based on the whistleblower complaint that the shifty Schiff himself had a hand in creating, clearly." (Carlson and Hannity are two Fox News hosts/personalities with a big audience.)
On the other side, it was more of an issue that Schiff wasn't exactly transparent about those contacts, at least initially. And that was seen as a problem because procedural issues can provide ammunition to the pro-Trump side. As CNN put it
for Schiff, there is no room for error. Every move he makes, every word he utters, is scrutinized by Republicans and combed for mistakes -- however minor.
On Trump-leaning side of the media, it's taken as evidence of some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump. Trump himself claimed that Schiff "helped write" the whistleblower's complaint. This has been repeated by pro-Trump media personalities like Tucker Carlson, although even Carlson only presented the collaborative writing bit as "credible rumours"; but Carlson nevertheless claimed that Schiff "orchestrated" the whole thing "in secret". Similarly, Hannity said that the impeachment effort was "totally based on the whistleblower complaint that the shifty Schiff himself had a hand in creating, clearly." (Carlson and Hannity are two Fox News hosts/personalities with a big audience.)
On the other side, it was more of an issue that Schiff wasn't exactly transparent about those contacts, at least initially. And that was seen as a problem because procedural issues can provide ammunition to the pro-Trump side. As CNN put it
for Schiff, there is no room for error. Every move he makes, every word he utters, is scrutinized by Republicans and combed for mistakes -- however minor.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
FizzFizz
28.9k3 gold badges76 silver badges166 bronze badges
28.9k3 gold badges76 silver badges166 bronze badges
1
I downvoted because in the first paragraph you dismiss Republicans’ concerns as “some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump” but then spend the next 3 essentially arguing that it’s some big Republican conspiracy to bring down Schiff. Maybe I should upvote because it’s unintentionally ironic? Either way, it doesn’t answer the OP’s question.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: if you think my answer is biased against Trump, you should the other one (by Polo)... Also, you can/should write your own answer, since you seem to think I've missed the big picture entirely. I'm guessing that means you know what that big picture should be.
– Fizz
6 hours ago
I think I will when I have more time. But even if you disagree with Republicans’ characterization, you should at least articulate it and then you can pay a personal nod to why you think it’s bogus. We should all strive to be more neutral with our answers in this hyperpartisan age.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: do you really want me add "shifty Schiff" to my post? Is that going to make it more balance in your view?
– Fizz
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
1
I downvoted because in the first paragraph you dismiss Republicans’ concerns as “some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump” but then spend the next 3 essentially arguing that it’s some big Republican conspiracy to bring down Schiff. Maybe I should upvote because it’s unintentionally ironic? Either way, it doesn’t answer the OP’s question.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: if you think my answer is biased against Trump, you should the other one (by Polo)... Also, you can/should write your own answer, since you seem to think I've missed the big picture entirely. I'm guessing that means you know what that big picture should be.
– Fizz
6 hours ago
I think I will when I have more time. But even if you disagree with Republicans’ characterization, you should at least articulate it and then you can pay a personal nod to why you think it’s bogus. We should all strive to be more neutral with our answers in this hyperpartisan age.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: do you really want me add "shifty Schiff" to my post? Is that going to make it more balance in your view?
– Fizz
5 hours ago
1
1
I downvoted because in the first paragraph you dismiss Republicans’ concerns as “some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump” but then spend the next 3 essentially arguing that it’s some big Republican conspiracy to bring down Schiff. Maybe I should upvote because it’s unintentionally ironic? Either way, it doesn’t answer the OP’s question.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
I downvoted because in the first paragraph you dismiss Republicans’ concerns as “some big Democrat conspiracy to bring down Trump” but then spend the next 3 essentially arguing that it’s some big Republican conspiracy to bring down Schiff. Maybe I should upvote because it’s unintentionally ironic? Either way, it doesn’t answer the OP’s question.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: if you think my answer is biased against Trump, you should the other one (by Polo)... Also, you can/should write your own answer, since you seem to think I've missed the big picture entirely. I'm guessing that means you know what that big picture should be.
– Fizz
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: if you think my answer is biased against Trump, you should the other one (by Polo)... Also, you can/should write your own answer, since you seem to think I've missed the big picture entirely. I'm guessing that means you know what that big picture should be.
– Fizz
6 hours ago
I think I will when I have more time. But even if you disagree with Republicans’ characterization, you should at least articulate it and then you can pay a personal nod to why you think it’s bogus. We should all strive to be more neutral with our answers in this hyperpartisan age.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
I think I will when I have more time. But even if you disagree with Republicans’ characterization, you should at least articulate it and then you can pay a personal nod to why you think it’s bogus. We should all strive to be more neutral with our answers in this hyperpartisan age.
– Wes Sayeed
6 hours ago
@WesSayeed: do you really want me add "shifty Schiff" to my post? Is that going to make it more balance in your view?
– Fizz
5 hours ago
@WesSayeed: do you really want me add "shifty Schiff" to my post? Is that going to make it more balance in your view?
– Fizz
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
First of all, Schiff never spoke to the whistleblower. At one point he stated that they (his committee) didn't have a conversation with that individual. In the context of questioning the individual they knew was a whistleblower about what was deemed to be a legitimate and credible complaint, that is accurate.
However, early on in the process, the whistleblower did contact his office with concerns, and asked for guidance on what to do. They advised that individual to get an attorney, and to follow the internal procedures for filing a complaint for the IG to evaluate. The staff person who took the call mentioned the broad outlines of the call to Schiff.
The previous Chair, the GOP's Devin Nunes said that they get dozens of these kinds of inquiries every year. There is nothing to indicate that this was handled in any way differently than the many other general inquiries they receive and have to deal with.
When Schiff dismissed the idea that they had specific, substantive discussions about the complaint with the person filing the complaint, he used much more general and broad language than that.
Is it an actual big deal? No. Because that kind of a very general referral to lodge the complaint with another entity, by the book, in no way would prejudice or allow Schiff or the Democrats to manipulate or manage the process. In the political and PR arena, does "actual" matter? Not as much as appearances, so he did give a window for people to claim/spin that he wasn't being candid.
However, pretty much everything in the complaint so far has mapped to what actually happened, to the point where the Trump Administration has confirmed those details while claiming them to be inaccurate, and that means that they need to muddy the waters. By casting rather weak and baseless claims about a corrupted process or a rigged system, they are hoping to de-legitimize the very serious matter of impeachment by claiming it is a political charade instead of a legitimate checking of an abuse of power and office of the President.
We don't know if the two spoke or not. We do know what various people said did or didn't happen.
– William Jockusch
3 hours ago
While I like this answer, it would benefit from some references, considering how contentious the topic is.
– Arcanist Lupus
25 mins ago
add a comment
|
First of all, Schiff never spoke to the whistleblower. At one point he stated that they (his committee) didn't have a conversation with that individual. In the context of questioning the individual they knew was a whistleblower about what was deemed to be a legitimate and credible complaint, that is accurate.
However, early on in the process, the whistleblower did contact his office with concerns, and asked for guidance on what to do. They advised that individual to get an attorney, and to follow the internal procedures for filing a complaint for the IG to evaluate. The staff person who took the call mentioned the broad outlines of the call to Schiff.
The previous Chair, the GOP's Devin Nunes said that they get dozens of these kinds of inquiries every year. There is nothing to indicate that this was handled in any way differently than the many other general inquiries they receive and have to deal with.
When Schiff dismissed the idea that they had specific, substantive discussions about the complaint with the person filing the complaint, he used much more general and broad language than that.
Is it an actual big deal? No. Because that kind of a very general referral to lodge the complaint with another entity, by the book, in no way would prejudice or allow Schiff or the Democrats to manipulate or manage the process. In the political and PR arena, does "actual" matter? Not as much as appearances, so he did give a window for people to claim/spin that he wasn't being candid.
However, pretty much everything in the complaint so far has mapped to what actually happened, to the point where the Trump Administration has confirmed those details while claiming them to be inaccurate, and that means that they need to muddy the waters. By casting rather weak and baseless claims about a corrupted process or a rigged system, they are hoping to de-legitimize the very serious matter of impeachment by claiming it is a political charade instead of a legitimate checking of an abuse of power and office of the President.
We don't know if the two spoke or not. We do know what various people said did or didn't happen.
– William Jockusch
3 hours ago
While I like this answer, it would benefit from some references, considering how contentious the topic is.
– Arcanist Lupus
25 mins ago
add a comment
|
First of all, Schiff never spoke to the whistleblower. At one point he stated that they (his committee) didn't have a conversation with that individual. In the context of questioning the individual they knew was a whistleblower about what was deemed to be a legitimate and credible complaint, that is accurate.
However, early on in the process, the whistleblower did contact his office with concerns, and asked for guidance on what to do. They advised that individual to get an attorney, and to follow the internal procedures for filing a complaint for the IG to evaluate. The staff person who took the call mentioned the broad outlines of the call to Schiff.
The previous Chair, the GOP's Devin Nunes said that they get dozens of these kinds of inquiries every year. There is nothing to indicate that this was handled in any way differently than the many other general inquiries they receive and have to deal with.
When Schiff dismissed the idea that they had specific, substantive discussions about the complaint with the person filing the complaint, he used much more general and broad language than that.
Is it an actual big deal? No. Because that kind of a very general referral to lodge the complaint with another entity, by the book, in no way would prejudice or allow Schiff or the Democrats to manipulate or manage the process. In the political and PR arena, does "actual" matter? Not as much as appearances, so he did give a window for people to claim/spin that he wasn't being candid.
However, pretty much everything in the complaint so far has mapped to what actually happened, to the point where the Trump Administration has confirmed those details while claiming them to be inaccurate, and that means that they need to muddy the waters. By casting rather weak and baseless claims about a corrupted process or a rigged system, they are hoping to de-legitimize the very serious matter of impeachment by claiming it is a political charade instead of a legitimate checking of an abuse of power and office of the President.
First of all, Schiff never spoke to the whistleblower. At one point he stated that they (his committee) didn't have a conversation with that individual. In the context of questioning the individual they knew was a whistleblower about what was deemed to be a legitimate and credible complaint, that is accurate.
However, early on in the process, the whistleblower did contact his office with concerns, and asked for guidance on what to do. They advised that individual to get an attorney, and to follow the internal procedures for filing a complaint for the IG to evaluate. The staff person who took the call mentioned the broad outlines of the call to Schiff.
The previous Chair, the GOP's Devin Nunes said that they get dozens of these kinds of inquiries every year. There is nothing to indicate that this was handled in any way differently than the many other general inquiries they receive and have to deal with.
When Schiff dismissed the idea that they had specific, substantive discussions about the complaint with the person filing the complaint, he used much more general and broad language than that.
Is it an actual big deal? No. Because that kind of a very general referral to lodge the complaint with another entity, by the book, in no way would prejudice or allow Schiff or the Democrats to manipulate or manage the process. In the political and PR arena, does "actual" matter? Not as much as appearances, so he did give a window for people to claim/spin that he wasn't being candid.
However, pretty much everything in the complaint so far has mapped to what actually happened, to the point where the Trump Administration has confirmed those details while claiming them to be inaccurate, and that means that they need to muddy the waters. By casting rather weak and baseless claims about a corrupted process or a rigged system, they are hoping to de-legitimize the very serious matter of impeachment by claiming it is a political charade instead of a legitimate checking of an abuse of power and office of the President.
answered 7 hours ago
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
14.4k2 gold badges32 silver badges65 bronze badges
14.4k2 gold badges32 silver badges65 bronze badges
We don't know if the two spoke or not. We do know what various people said did or didn't happen.
– William Jockusch
3 hours ago
While I like this answer, it would benefit from some references, considering how contentious the topic is.
– Arcanist Lupus
25 mins ago
add a comment
|
We don't know if the two spoke or not. We do know what various people said did or didn't happen.
– William Jockusch
3 hours ago
While I like this answer, it would benefit from some references, considering how contentious the topic is.
– Arcanist Lupus
25 mins ago
We don't know if the two spoke or not. We do know what various people said did or didn't happen.
– William Jockusch
3 hours ago
We don't know if the two spoke or not. We do know what various people said did or didn't happen.
– William Jockusch
3 hours ago
While I like this answer, it would benefit from some references, considering how contentious the topic is.
– Arcanist Lupus
25 mins ago
While I like this answer, it would benefit from some references, considering how contentious the topic is.
– Arcanist Lupus
25 mins ago
add a comment
|
In the context of impeachment, something is a big deal if the voters think it is. The voters, after all, have the power to re-elect both the President and the Congress, or not. So their opinions matter. Something that swings even 1% of voters one way or the other is likely to change the results of some elections and could even swing the 2020 Presidency.
Schiff says there was no direct communication. If this is proven to be a lie, it will reflect poorly on the Democrats.
The Politifact piece looks to me like evidence that there was communication, but not necessarily direct communication. Thus Schiff's statement may be true (they didn't speak directly) yet also leaving out important context (they could be acting as part of a coordinated plan without direct communication). Obviously each voter will decide for themselves what to make of that, but one suspects that some won't like it.
About that fact checking (and pinocchios awarded to Schiff) see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46342/…
– Fizz
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
In the context of impeachment, something is a big deal if the voters think it is. The voters, after all, have the power to re-elect both the President and the Congress, or not. So their opinions matter. Something that swings even 1% of voters one way or the other is likely to change the results of some elections and could even swing the 2020 Presidency.
Schiff says there was no direct communication. If this is proven to be a lie, it will reflect poorly on the Democrats.
The Politifact piece looks to me like evidence that there was communication, but not necessarily direct communication. Thus Schiff's statement may be true (they didn't speak directly) yet also leaving out important context (they could be acting as part of a coordinated plan without direct communication). Obviously each voter will decide for themselves what to make of that, but one suspects that some won't like it.
About that fact checking (and pinocchios awarded to Schiff) see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46342/…
– Fizz
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
In the context of impeachment, something is a big deal if the voters think it is. The voters, after all, have the power to re-elect both the President and the Congress, or not. So their opinions matter. Something that swings even 1% of voters one way or the other is likely to change the results of some elections and could even swing the 2020 Presidency.
Schiff says there was no direct communication. If this is proven to be a lie, it will reflect poorly on the Democrats.
The Politifact piece looks to me like evidence that there was communication, but not necessarily direct communication. Thus Schiff's statement may be true (they didn't speak directly) yet also leaving out important context (they could be acting as part of a coordinated plan without direct communication). Obviously each voter will decide for themselves what to make of that, but one suspects that some won't like it.
In the context of impeachment, something is a big deal if the voters think it is. The voters, after all, have the power to re-elect both the President and the Congress, or not. So their opinions matter. Something that swings even 1% of voters one way or the other is likely to change the results of some elections and could even swing the 2020 Presidency.
Schiff says there was no direct communication. If this is proven to be a lie, it will reflect poorly on the Democrats.
The Politifact piece looks to me like evidence that there was communication, but not necessarily direct communication. Thus Schiff's statement may be true (they didn't speak directly) yet also leaving out important context (they could be acting as part of a coordinated plan without direct communication). Obviously each voter will decide for themselves what to make of that, but one suspects that some won't like it.
answered 3 hours ago
William JockuschWilliam Jockusch
2,1141 gold badge4 silver badges16 bronze badges
2,1141 gold badge4 silver badges16 bronze badges
About that fact checking (and pinocchios awarded to Schiff) see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46342/…
– Fizz
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
About that fact checking (and pinocchios awarded to Schiff) see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46342/…
– Fizz
3 hours ago
About that fact checking (and pinocchios awarded to Schiff) see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46342/…
– Fizz
3 hours ago
About that fact checking (and pinocchios awarded to Schiff) see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46342/…
– Fizz
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f46475%2fwhy-it-is-a-big-deal-whether-or-not-adam-schiff-talked-to-the-whistleblower%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I wonder if he might have felt that to protect the whistleblower it could be a case of justified deception, in that otherwise the whistleblower might be publicly or privately identified before that whistleblower was ready.
– Mark Rogers
6 hours ago