Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pauses as he speaks to media about the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Friday, Sept. 28, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

When George Kent testified during the open impeachment hearings on Wednesday, there were some things he said that the mainstream media seemed to have mostly glossed over, but were truly consequential.

Kent explained that not only had he had concerns about the appearance of a conflict with Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma, but that he and other officials believed there were legitimate questions about Biden’s company, Burisma, and whether or not bribes had been paid to cancel the investigation into the company.

That would seem incredibly important as it confirms there were legitimate corruption questions about Burisma that other U.S. officials had asked questions about for years.

Kent also noted that he reached out to the staff of then Vice-President, Joe Biden, to tell them about his concerns, but that he was rebuffed by the staff, who told him that the Vice President had no “bandwidth” to deal with such questions at that point because of the illness of his other son, Beau. Although apparently nothing was actually done about answering that concern by the Obama administration.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) also brought that the concern out during questioning of former Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch.

So why are the Democrats attacking over the same questions that members of the Obama administration were asking?

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) may have the answer.

Graham had some great questions on this point after the testimony of Kent which have not been picked up by the mainstream media (naturally).

The alleged whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, was the NSC’s Ukraine guy at the White House and allegedly worked with Joe Biden when Biden was the point man on Ukraine while all this was going on, including all the questions about Burisma and Hunter Biden. Also when Biden said he threatened to withhold aid unless Ukraine fired the prosecutor who has sworn under oath in an affidavit that he was investigating Burisma. The prosecutor has said that he was fired because of Biden and that he was, in fact, looking into Burisma. So what did the whistleblower know and when did he know it?

So is the question not just that he was an Obama holdover that was part of the cabal that wanted Trump out, but that he might also have information on actions that would have been under investigation? And might that be why suddenly he’s a “whistleblower?”

And is he being withheld now, not just because of his contacts with Schiff and his staff and his prior connections to the Obama administration, but because he might be asked about any actions he might have taken or been aware of?