Adam Schiff says NO Whistleblower Testimony -- it's Redundant and Unnecessary

Congressman Adam Schiff has already denied the Republican request for the "Whistleblower" to testify in front of The House Committee !!

We all saw the actual wording in that House Resolution that said The Majority could stop any Republican witnesses and sure enough, Schiff has struck first 😃

Schiff says the WB's "testimony" would be redundant and unnecessary without even knowing the questions !!

The longer this goes, the dumber the Democrats will look when it ends 😃

It's more like a WhistleHoax 😃

What ARE Democrats so afraid of anyway ? 😀

Schiff Dismisses Republican Calls for Trump Whistleblower to Testify: ‘Redundant and Unnecessary’

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said the whistleblower’s testimony in the impeachment inquiry against President Trump is both “redundant and unnecessary” as the inquiry, according to Schiff, has gathered enough evidence.

Schiff wrote in a letter to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the Intelligence committee, that testimony from the whistleblower isn’t relevant now.

“The impeachment inquiry, moreover, has gathered an ever-growing body of evidence—from witnesses and documents, including the President’s own words in his July 25 call record—that not only confirms, but far exceeds, the initial information in the whistleblower’s complaint,” Schiff wrote. “The whistleblower’s testimony is therefore redundant and unnecessary.”

Schiff then added that “the individual’s appearance before us would only place their personal safety at grave risk” after calls to unmask the anonymous person.

a reply to: xuenchen

Someone needs to doxx him so the American public can voice their opinion on his front porch.

So , the Loony Loons haven't found one yet....

Sounds like someone is worried his democrat loyalties would be exposed. Also testifying that he didn't meet with shifty first then having that exposed would not only ruin his credibility but also open both perjury.

So Trump doesnt get to face his accuser and question him under oath? That doesnt sound legal to me.

a reply to: xuenchen

Hearing from any of the witnesses who were concerned and troubled and telling Ukraine to ignore u.s. foreign policy, like Vindman did, is redundant and unnecessary.

a reply to: SailorJerry

Senator Lindsey Graham says if the Whistleblower does not testify, impeachment is Dead on Arrival at the front door of the US Senate.

a reply to: carewemust

Obviously in the Senate he would be called back for testimony as the dems don't have to ability to block ot there. I seriously doubt any of this makes it that far...it seems to me like grandstanding for the elections and I would be they drag this put as long as possible stopping short of ever calling a vote.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SailorJerry

Senator Lindsey Graham says if the Whistleblower does not testify, impeachment is Dead on Arrival at the front door of the US Senate.

So, no different than what’s going to happen anyway?

originally posted by: carewemust
Senator Lindsey Graham says if the Whistleblower does not testify, impeachment is Dead on Arrival at the front door of the US Senate.

So Schiff is correct. The WB's testimony is redundant and unnecessary. Impeachment being DoA at the front door of the US Senate is already a given.

a reply to: xuenchen

Congressman Adam Schiff has already denied the Republican request for the "Whistleblower" to testify in front of The House Committee !!

Okay. The Senate will call him to testify if it doesn't fall apart under Schiff's incompetency.

We all saw the actual wording in that House Resolution that said The Majority could stop any Republican witnesses and sure enough, Schiff has struck first 😃

I am starting to doubt that a whistleblower even exist with all the lie's Schiff has told already. Proof of Trump Russian Collusion comes to mind.

Schiff says the WB's "testimony" would be redundant and unnecessary without even knowing the questions !!

lol. Yeah. He is trying to avoid another Christine Blasey incident because he knows the story will fall apart immediately. They follow the same plan every single time.
Does he really think the Senate is going to take an unknown whistleblower's word for it?

What ARE Democrats so afraid of anyway ? 😀

2020

a reply to: xuenchen

They are afraid of everything.
But the biggest thing they are afraid of is Trump beating them like punching bags again in 2020.
Schiff knows that with the slew of useless candidates they have trotted out, they only way they have a chance of winning is to get Trump removed based on Dem lies.

a reply to: carewemust

Yes, the Senate will decide to try the impeachment if forwarded by the House of Representatives.

Sole power to try impeachments. A great deal of elasticity here as well.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6

Let's see the use within the premises pressed by the House; with an eye toward future foundation/precedence... This will become interesting. John Roberts would preside over any Senate hearing and somewhat will become under further attacks.

I welcome the investigations, testimony and exposure of our government rife with hypocrisy, corruption and non-representation of the people in general. Let them all fail and become exposed, regardless of party affiliations.


mg

a reply to: xuenchen
F Adam Schiff
And F all the dems that don't stand up to him.

a reply to: RazorV66

Schiff knows that with the slew of useless candidates they have trotted out, they only way they have a chance of winning is to get Trump removed based on Dem lies.

Yet even then, he would still be re-elected by the people.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I personally agree wholeheartedly.

My perspective is such that all the foul exposure will finally begin to surface. Well, in hope.

Schiff opened a can that can not resealed; IMO should not be repackaged ever again.

mg

originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: shooterbrody

I personally agree wholeheartedly.

My perspective is such that all the foul exposure will finally begin to surface. Well, in hope.

Schiff opened a can that can not resealed; IMO should not be repackaged ever again.

mg

And to think that Trump is the only President to expose this much of the deep corruption in our Government. That a lone would win him 5 more terms, I am sure the Legislative Branch doesn't have a problem with more than 2 terms. If they do then they are hypocrites.

So the testimony of the whistleblower is redundant and unnecessary?

The words of the person on which the authority was granted to start this process is redundant and unnecessary?

Are there questions that we don’t want asked because it might expose some sort of conspiracy or plot, hence their testimony is redundant and unnecessary?

Would answering of specific questions muddle a more acceptable narrative and lead things in a different direction, is that why their testimony is redundant and unnecessary?

Too much opportunity leaving assets that ignore security protocols in place becoming identified and dealt with, is that why their testimony is redundant and unnecessary?

Procedures still haven’t been properly followed yet, would we be surprised when they confirm what is strongly suspected running down who knew what and when is that why their testimony is redundant and unnecessary?



Schiff and Nancy killed The DNC which is the real reason why their testimony is redundant and unnecessary...

If the whistleblower does not testify, the whole thing should fall apart for the Democrats, the whole investigation hinges on his testimony. What the hell are the Democrats doing, it is above insanity, they must believe they are above the law or above their actions even being questioned. I think Schiff should be thrown out of Congress for behavior that is improper. I can see reasoning behind Trump's people denying to testify since this is a kangaroo court, but not the person the whole investigation hinges on.

a reply to: xuenchen

Let us say for a second that everything the Democrats have hoaxed...I mean discovered, sorry slip of the keys. What does it mean that they got the evidence under false information or false witnesses. Basically what would it mean if the original claim that got this whole thing started was PROVEN to be false, what does that mean for the other evidence? I ask not because I think Trump is guilty of anything but because they did the same with the whole Russiagate falsehoods and was wondering what would happen if it was based on lies...again.