The partisan whistleblower whose allegations against President Donald Trump produced the Democrats’ ongoing impeachment drive is allegedly a liar.

And according to House Judiciary Committee member John Ratcliffe, a Republican, detailed proof of the whistleblower’s lying habits are purposefully being kept under wraps by House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff.

Speaking during the Judiciary Committee’s final impeachment hearing Monday, Ratcliffe claimed that the proof can be found in the transcribed interview of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson that occurred on Oct. 4.

Listen:

“On pages 53 to 73 of that transcribed interview, the inspector general’s testimony confirms the following,” he said, before listing the following:

♦ “[T]hat the whistleblower made statements to the inspector general under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct …”

♦ “[T]hat the whistleblower first made statements in writing under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct …”

♦ “[And that] the whistleblower then made statements under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct in his or her verbal responses to the inspector general’s investigative team.”

In short, the partisan whistleblower lied both verbally and in written statements when questioned by IG Michael Atkinson.

These lies reportedly pertained to the whistleblower’s potentially illicit, secret contact with the Intelligence Committee chair, which both he and Schiff had initially tried to deny.

Yet, Ratcliffe continued, none of this is mentioned in the reportedly factually incorrect impeachment report that Schiff published last week.

Nor is any information included regarding attempts made by the whistleblower after Oct. 4 to try and explain why he’d lied in the first place.

“After the inspector general testified on October 4th and after media reports revealed that the whistleblower and chairman Schiff did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with one another, the whistleblower contacted the inspector general to explain why he or she made statements under penalty of perjury in writing and verbally that were not true correct and accurate,” Ratcliffe revealed.

After noting these points, the Republican congressman then argued that Schiff needs to release the transcript of Atkinson’s testimony, if for no other reason than to hold him, Ratcliffe, accountable for his potentially “false statements” about the whistleblower.

“I think all members of Congress should be held accountable during this impeachment process, and to that if I have made any false statements about the whistleblower or the inspector general’s testimony today, then I should be held accountable,” he said.

“The way to do that would be to release the inspector general’s testimony or even just pages 53 to 73. I would add that there’s nothing in those pages that would in any way identify or place at risk the whistleblowers identity. Nor would it reveal any information that in any way relates to, much less jeopardizes national security.”

In tweets posted late last month, Ratcliffe theorized that Schiff’s been refusing to release the transcript because it contains potentially troubling details on his contact with the partisan whistleblower:

I know why @paulsperry_ It’s because I asked IG Atkinson about his “investigation” into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower. The transcript is classified “secret” so Schiff can prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions

— John Ratcliffe (@RepRatcliffe) November 30, 2019

Hmm …

The congressman concluded his statement Monday by conceding that perhaps there are legitimate reasons “for why the whistleblower made statements that weren’t true or accurate about his contact or her contact with chairman Schiff in writing and then again verbally.”

“Maybe there’s a good explanation for why the whistleblower also misled the inspector general in writing on Aug. 12 by stating, ‘I reserve the option to exercise my legal right to contact the committee’s directly,’ when the whistleblower had in fact already contacted chairman Schiff’s committee two weeks before he or she wrote that,” Ratcliffe said.

Maybe all of the whistleblower’s actions are on the up and up. But it would be nice if at least a modicum of proof could be provided, he continued, arriving at his core point.

“But there is no good reason for voting to impeach and remove from office an American president without allowing a single question to be asked, a single witness to get an explanation for why the inspector general was not told the truth about contacts between the whistleblower and chairman Schiff,” he said.

“The bottom line is we should all be held accountable, and next November every member of the House will be asked this question: Did you vote to impeach the president without allowing any investigation into why the whistleblower that started it all did so by making statements in writing and verbally under penalty of perjury that were not true!? Democrats may not care if that question ever gets answered, but the voters will.”

Particularly voters in key battleground/swing states, where the polls have swung wildly against Democrats, with majorities in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Wisconsin now all opposing their impeachment efforts.

• Author
• Recent Posts

Vivek Saxena

Senior Staff Writer
[email protected]

V. Saxena is a staff writer for BizPac Review with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University.

Latest posts by Vivek Saxena (see all)

• ‘Fake drama’: NYC thug accused of shoving woman, 68, off church steps arrested – tries to hang himself - April 14, 2024
• Bundy family say they’re ‘still ranching’ 10 years after armed standoff with feds - April 14, 2024
• INSIDER: News outlets seek specific election commitment from Biden, Trump - April 14, 2024

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.