Representative John Ratcliffe of Texas has made quite a name for himself during these public impeachment hearings for calling out Adam Schiff, and he has no intentions of stopping.
On Sunday Ratcliffe revealed to Fox News that Representative Schiff is not under oath during this impeachment process, and therefore has no obligation to tell the truth.
“Much of what he is saying is just not true,” Ratcliffe says, confirming what most people paying attention had assumed. “We’d like him to testify. I think congressman Collins is going to ask for that when the House Intelligence Committee sends a report to the Judiciary Committee.”
Ratcliffe goes on to say that he “doubts Chairman Nadler will allow that,” knowing full well that Democrats are doing all they can to keep the truth hidden.
“That’s unfortunate, but it’s just another reason why this is going to be dead on arrival in the Senate. The most important witnesses, including Adam Schiff, are not going to be testifying,” he says.
That’s the reason why Adam Schiff hasn’t been taken to task for his constant flip-flopping of his story. USA Today fact-checked him on his claims that he had no idea who the whistleblower was, and had no contact with him:
Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the House intelligence committee, wrongly implied that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower before receiving the complaint. Schiff claimed, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to a committee aide before filing a complaint.
A Democratic committee official told us Schiff “could have been more clear” but was “referring to the Committee officially interviewing the whistleblower, and himself personally.” It was clearly known, however, that the committee hadn’t officially interviewed the whistleblower at that time.
The New York Times broke the story on Oct. 2 that Schiff knew about “the outlines” of the whistleblower’s concerns before the Aug. 12 complaint was filed. The whistleblower had contacted an intelligence committee aide after passing along concerns to the CIA’s top lawyer and being “[c]oncerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding,” the Times reported.
New York Times, Oct. 2: The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the [whistleblower] find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.
Due to the fact that Adam Schiff is not under oath, there are no repercussions (outside of being called a liar) for his blatant falsehoods.
Ratcliffe said there’s a reason why Schiff, and the rest of the democrats are so eager to push impeachment through now:
“They know that the Inspector General report is likely to be damning about the origins of the 2016 investigation into the Trump campaign, the role that the Obama-Biden administration played in that… Look, we know this, the report is supposedly 500 pages. It doesn’t take the Inspector General 500 pages to say everything was done correctly… I think it’s going to be an indictment of Adam Schiff.”
Buckle up folks, we are in for a bumpy ride.