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;








3

















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.










share|improve this question





























  • 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

















3

















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.










share|improve this question





























  • 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













3












3








3








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.










share|improve this question

















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






share|improve this question
















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








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

















  • 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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6


















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.







share|improve this answer























  • 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


















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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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


















0


















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.






share|improve this answer


























  • About that fact checking (and pinocchios awarded to Schiff) see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46342/…

    – Fizz
    3 hours ago













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
);



);














draft saved

draft discarded
















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









6


















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.







share|improve this answer























  • 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















6


















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.







share|improve this answer























  • 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













6














6










6









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.







share|improve this answer
















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.








share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








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












  • 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













1


















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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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















1


















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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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













1














1










1









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.






share|improve this answer














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.







share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer










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

















  • 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











0


















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.






share|improve this answer


























  • About that fact checking (and pinocchios awarded to Schiff) see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46342/…

    – Fizz
    3 hours ago
















0


















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.






share|improve this answer


























  • About that fact checking (and pinocchios awarded to Schiff) see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46342/…

    – Fizz
    3 hours ago














0














0










0









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.






share|improve this answer














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.







share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer










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


















  • 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



















draft saved

draft discarded















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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









Popular posts from this blog

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її