Gosh, golly and gee, this little tidbit from Catherine Herridge about the whistleblower seems kinda sorta important, yeah? Especially since they are moving into a new ‘phase’ of the impeachment circus.

As impeachment enters new phase, #WB did not initially disclose contact w/Schiff staff citing “guidance on a procedural question,” “no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed,” and “way the form question was worded.” https://t.co/WPgcbI88Ym

My Sharpie. My highlighter. pic.twitter.com/EtzuSDX87l — Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) December 2, 2019

The wording was confusing? Huh?

Alrighty then.

From CBS:

CBS News has reviewed documents that show the anonymous whistleblower reached out to the intelligence community watchdog on October 8 to clarify the nature of his or her contact with Democratic majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee before the complaint was filed. The whistleblower acknowledged reaching out to the committee, but claimed that nothing substantial was discussed and that the staff member directed them to go through official channels, according to the “Memorandum of Investigative Activity,” provided to House and Senate Intelligence Committee leadership by intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) Michael Atkinson. The form is dated October 18 and documents the October 8 outreach by the whistleblower. Republicans have seized on the contact with Democratic committee staff to question the credibility of the whistleblower, while Democrats have downplayed the significance.

Of course Democrats are downplaying this, they need the leaker … sorry, the whistleblower … to be credible.

It’s all so silly, right?

Pretty tricking wording there. "Congress or congressional committee(s)."

Easy to see how someone smart enough to work for the CIA would get confused. — Jack Wade (@GKG_77) December 2, 2019

Looks pretty straight forward to me. Thank you for showing us the form, @CBS_Herridge. You are the best in the business! — Annie Elizabeth (@Annie_with3) December 2, 2019

Well of course we should automatically trust the leaker’s word, right? — John Woodward (@JohnWoodward1) December 2, 2019

Totally. You can always trust a leaker.

Heh.

Related:

RUH-ROH, Nancy: Brit Hume points out one very BIG thing Democrats are missing in their impeachment sham

YEAH … no: Byron York shares IG writing from 2018 that all but contradicts Lisa Page’s claim SHE is the real victim

Class is in SESSION! Carol Roth schooling Mark Ruffalo on why capitalism is a ‘tremendous success’ will make you fist-pump