The ‘whistleblower’ was once someone Dems were eager to hear from. What happened?

By Deroy Murdock | Fox News

The House Judiciary Committee will begin impeachment hearings on Wednesday, but the individual who got the entire ball rolling won’t be present. The whistleblower is AWOL.

Top House Intelligence Committee Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., pointed out on Nov. 19, “Now that the whistleblower has successfully kickstarted impeachment, he has disappeared from the story — as if the Democrats put the whistleblower in their own witness protection program.”

This key figure’s absence is especially stunning, given that Democrats were for the whistleblower’s testimony before they were against it.

  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote her colleagues on Sept. 22 announcing that Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire would testify before House Intelligence on Sept. Pelosi stated that members of Congress “expect that he will establish a path for the whistleblower to speak directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees as required by law.”
  • “We have been informed by the whistleblower’s counsel that their client would like to speak to our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so,” House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announced Sept. 24, via Twitter. “We’re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week.”
  • “We need to speak with the whistleblower,” Schiff, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., and the late House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., declared in a Sept. 25 joint press release.
  • “Do I have your assurance that the whistleblower will be able to testify fully and freely and enjoy the protections of the law?” Schiff asked Maguire at a Sept. 26 Intelligence hearing. Maguire replied, “Yes, congressman.”
  • Schiff insisted on Sept. 29 that the whistleblower should appear “without a minder from the Justice Department or from the White House to tell the whistleblower what they can or cannot say. We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.”

But Democrats then spun the Impeachment Express 180 degrees.

  • Mark Zaid — an attorney for the whistleblower, whom Schiff claimed a month earlier was working to unveil his client — said on October 24 that the whistleblower “is completely irrelevant, as the complaint is now public, and the primary actors at senior levels are being interviewed by members of the House from both political parties.”
  • “The whistleblower will go down in history as a hero for kicking off this process,” said Rep. Jamie B. Raskin, D-Md., a House Oversight Committee member. “But the whistleblower is no longer integral to the investigation in any way.”
  • Nunes proposed having the whistleblower testify before the Intelligence Committee. In a Nov. 9 letter, Schiff replied, “an ever-growing body of evidence … not only confirms, but far exceeds, the initial information in the whistleblower’s complaint.”

You can read more here. 

You Might Like