(Natural News) The Democrat impeachment inquiry clown show continued on Tuesday with three more so-called “witnesses” to President Donald Trump’s allegedly nefarious phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, only it didn’t go well for the conspirators.
The first witness to testify — Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a member of the National Security Council and supposed “Ukraine expert” — has actually testified to the impeachment inquiry before, only in secret when the proceedings were still being held behind closed doors, literally in the basement of the U.S. Capitol Building.
Under questioning from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who followed up on an earlier line of questioning from Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), he asked the NSC expert to whom he leaked information about the Trump-Zelensky phone call.
But immediately, Schiff — who is in charge of the clown show because Democrats control the House and he’s the chairman of the inquiry — interjected, claiming that Vindman was not authorized to discuss the name of the whistleblower.
But wait, Jordan said. What’s the big deal? After all, Schiff has already claimed during past proceedings that he has no idea of the whistleblower’s identity.
“Mr. Chairman, I don’t see how this is outing the whistleblower? The witness has testified in his deposition that he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is,” Jordan noted.
“You have said, even though no one believes you, you have said that you don’t know who the whistleblower is. So, how is this outing the whistleblower to find out who this whistleblower is?” Jordan pressed.
Previously, Schiff said, “we have not spoken directly to the whistleblower,” although his office later revised that, saying Schiff himself “does not know the identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the whistleblower or their counsel” for any reason.
But Jordan’s jab at Schiff — that no one believes him when he says he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is — stems from earlier reporting claiming a) Eric Ciaramella, a CIA official formerly detailed to the White House, is the whistleblower; and b) he contacted Schiff’s office before filing his complaint.
What a massive hoax this all is
Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations reported Oct. 20:
More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that’s known publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House and is now back working at the CIA.
But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry.
As for contacting Schiff’s office, Fox News reported that the whistleblower did not disclose his contact with the California Democrat or his staff to the House Intelligence Committee inspector general, Michael Atkinson.
In a closed-door session in early October, Atkinson said he never investigated the whistleblower’s contact with Schiff’s office because he wasn’t aware of it.
Following that closed-door hearing, Schiff denied the whistleblower met with him or his staff and criticized Republicans, claiming they have “continued the president’s strategy of deflection by making the absurd claim that because a whistleblower contacted the committee seeking guidance, the committee cannot conduct an investigation into the complaint.”
“If that were true, no whistleblower could contact Congress, and no committee could conduct an investigation,” he added.
But in reality, everyone in D.C. knows — and has known — the whistleblower is Ciaramella including the disgustingly dishonest “mainstream media” which has no problem doxing Trump supporters and publishing leaked information that is supposedly damaging to the president as they have done for three years.
This entire impeachment inquiry is a clown show and a colossal exercise in deception by Democrats to ‘get Trump’ any way possible.