A lot of information is coming out now which is effectively destroying the credibility of the complaint of the Ukraine whistleblower, from the knowledge that the whistleblower had contacts with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) while Schiff was saying publicly that he had no contacts, to the Volker testimony that was just released completely blowing the claims in the complaint out of the water.

We also found out the person is, big surprise, a registered Democrat.

But now there’s more information and it may spell big trouble for the whistleblower, if true.

From The Federalist:

According to Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, ICIG Michael Atkinson testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) that the anti-Trump complainant, whose identity has not been made public, did not inform the ICIG in his complaint that he or his team had already contacted Democratic staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House intelligence committee.

Another contact involved the whistleblower writing a letter to Schiff on August 12, informing him about his concerns. The letter contained an attachment which has not been released. But the complaint was allegedly dated August 12.

The Federalist explains why this failure is such a problem:

The complainant’s failure to disclose his interactions with Schiff or his staff could put him in legal hot water, as the whistleblower form he submitted requires individuals to disclose “other actions you are taking on your disclosure” under penalty of perjury. An entire page of the whistleblower form is dedicated to collecting information about previous disclosures so the ICIG can take appropriate action in response to the complaint.

“I have previously disclosed (or am disclosing) the violations alleged here to (complete all that apply),” the form requires the complainant to attest. The form includes checkboxes for disclosures to other inspectors general, other agencies, the Department of Justice, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Special Counsel, other executive branch departments, Congress and its respective committees, and media. It also includes a separate question asking the complainant to detail those previous disclosures to the ICIG.

The bottom of the form requires the complainant to swear to the truth of everything asserted or the person could face prosecution for a false statement, a felony that could earn one five years in prison.

The Federalist confirmed with an official that the box about notifying Congress was left empty.

It is not clear exactly when the contact with the aide was made or whether there were potentially other contacts. But the contact with the aide, who told the whistleblower to go the ICIG obviously preceded filling out the form for the ICIG, hence the problem.