In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” White House chief advisor Stephen Miller lit into the whistleblower who launched an investigation into President Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president. Miller pulled no punches, hammering the media for even referring to the person as a “whistleblower,” given that he had absolutely no firsthand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing.
“I think it’s unfortunate the media continued to describe this individual as a whistleblower, an honorific that this individual most certainly does not deserve,” said Miller. “A partisan hit job does not make you a whistleblower just because you go through the Whistleblower Protection Act.
“If you read the seven-page Nancy Drew novel for the whistle-blower put together, it drips with condescension, righteous indignation and contempt for the president,” Miller said. “It’s also ludicrous on its face. It describes an elaborate cover-up that also, by the way, the president discussed on Sean Hannity, April 25th. What kind of secret cover of are you also discussing on the airwaves of Fox News? Furthermore, the inspector general found evidence of political bias in the individual, which is not disputed by anybody.”
Miller said that his time in the White House had given him enough experience to know a deep state operative when he saw one.
“I’ve worked in the federal government now for nearly three years,” he said. “I know at the deep state looks like. I know the difference between a whistleblower and a deep state operative. This is a deep state operative, pure and simple. People who haven’t been in the federal government, who haven’t worked in the White House may not appreciate this but the situation as you have a group of unelected bureaucrats who think that they need to take down this president.”
Miller’s allegation not only conforms with what we know about this whistleblower and his complaint, it also jibes with reporting from The Federalist this weekend. In a very illuminating piece, reporter Sean Davis found that somewhere between May of last year and August of this year, the intelligence community quietly removed a longstanding requirement that whistleblowers have to have “first-hand knowledge” of wrongdoing to qualify for “urgent status.” Had this requirement remained in place, it’s doubtful that the whistleblower’s complaint would have ever reached Adam Schiff, much less the public at large.
So the question is: Why was the change made? Or perhaps a better question: When was it made?
The left is already bristling at Miller’s “deep state” characterization of the whistleblower, but there is too much smoke here to dismiss the possibility of a fire.
If only our media was willing to see it.