The Hill: Washington Post fact-checker gives Schiff four Pinocchios for whistleblower remark

Since Adam’s Schiff’s credibility was a topic of discussion recently here at the Forum, this story may be of some interest.

To be fair, one fact check story all by itself doesn’t amount to much, and WAPO’s track record in fact checking is decidedly spotty.

Nevertheless, it is notable when even one’s supporters cry foul.

P.S. I’m unable to link directly to the original WAPO piece. There’s a link in the link.

9 thoughts on “The Hill: Washington Post fact-checker gives Schiff four Pinocchios for whistleblower remark

  1. Busted!

    Poor answer to a simple question, even if the excuse was that Schiff was referring to testimony, not just contact.

    But why do you believe the fake news now and not earlier about…anything really? Fake news except when it helps Trump?

    That was a poke in the ribs (gently) and a wink, BTW.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “But why do you believe the fake news now and not earlier about…anything really?”

      I don’t really. Fox News doesn’t have the market for credibility cornered.

      RE: “That was a poke in the ribs (gently) and a wink, BTW.”

      No worries!

      Like

  2. Based on the facts presented in the story, it seems to me that this fibbing was about protecting the identity of the Whistle Blower. Given the threats issued by Trump and the way that people who hurt Putin’s interests come to bad ends, keeping that identity as secret as possible is a matter of serious concern.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Given that the “whistleblower” apparently went to Congress before making the complaint to the IG claiming whistleblower status and its protections, can he still claim those protections or is he now just a spy who dispersed classified material illegally?

    Like

    1. @Tabor

      Spy?

      Picking up on Dear Leader’s crazy talk I see. No shame at all. Sad.

      It is not yet illegal to share classified material with the Intelligence Committees of Congress IF that happened. What IS illegal is using government secrecy to avoid political embarrassment. By all reports and according to the Trump “word for word, comma for comma” transcript there were no classified materials involved anyway. So, another swing and a whiff.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Because you say so?

        I think I’ll wait for someone with some actual knowledge of the whistleblower laws to weigh in, but it makes no sense to have that law a protects them if they go outside channels to go to Congress if they can legally do so without following the law.

        What it looks like to me is that the person in question went to Congress illegally and was sent back to go through the procedures to make it legal after-the-fact.

        Like

        1. @Tabor
          “I think I’ll wait for someone with some actual knowledge of the whistleblower laws to weigh in . . .”

          LOL!

          That did not stop you from spreading slanders pulled from your ass about him did it?
          There is no evidence of any kind that he is a “spy” or that he “illegally dispersed classified materials.”

          MAYBE he conferred with Congressional reps or staff lawyers and asked “Can you protect me?” And, MAYBE they said “Better to raise this as a Whistle Blower complaint.” IF that happened, what would be your problem with it?

          As Trumpists have pointed out, the Whistle Blower had no first hand knowledge. He betrayed no oath or position by raising this complaint HOWEVER he chose to do it. And, by the way, since when is it illegal to share information on criminal behavior with Congress? Don’t they have oversight responsibility. Even though the crimes were referred for prosecution by the top lawyer at the CIA, the DOJ – under Barr – declined to take any action. What was an honest and law-abiding man supposed to do in the face of THAT?

          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481

          Meanwhile, while all the Trumpkins man the barricades of denial, the evidence is mounting up that EVERYTHING in the complaint was accurate.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Actually there are many documented errors in the complaint, which is to be expected with hearsay.

            And again, I do not know the details of the Whistleblower law.

            However, it is important that foreign leaders be able to talk to the President with the expectation of privacy if they are to speak frankly.

            Whether direct or second hand, leaking the contents of those conversations is criminal. The purpose of whistleblower laws is to provide means for unlawful acts to be reported to appropriate oversight authority.

            It is clear that the leaker went around those provisions and whatever his motives, it was not his place to make that determination.

            Like

          2. @Tabor
            Whether direct or second hand, leaking the contents of those conversations is criminal?

            What law is that?

            These were not classified materials and they were not leaked.

            “Expectation of privacy?”

            There was NONE of that in this case with, apparently multiple Trump people invited to sit in – many more than is usual in a Presidential phone call. Why, for example, was Pompeo in on the call?

            Actually, there are ZERO material errors in the complaint. You are doing a not credible job of repeating Trump’s lies. Each day that passes the evidence mounts how complete and accurate it was.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mounting-evidence-buttresses-the-facts-laid-out-in-whistleblower-complaint/2019/10/05/c752843e-e6b5-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s