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

a reply to: scrounger

Whistleblower complaints can range from here is evidence of a crime but I can’t bring it through the normal chain to I think a crime is happening here is what I know.

The whistleblower in this case falls to the latter thus as I said equivalent to an anonymous tip. It will need further investigation but the person that brought it to the attention of investigators is irelevant.

a reply to: Pyle

it is relevant because in order to have even heard this requires dealing with SECRECY and security clearances .
this isnt seeing a drug deal on the street or hearing/seeing your nitwit relative doing something illegal.
this is someone in a position of trust within the government having access to the conversations of the president and foreign leaders
but in either case the whistle blower rules / regulations / law that this person is claiming (along with every democrat, main stream media and anti trump)) puts it out of "anonymous tip"

sorry but once they claimed that you cannot now try to change it because it isnt helping your case

scrounger

originally posted by: xuenchen
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.

If you had information, then Trump will silence you one way or another. Better not to risk a political career than to do the right thing, and that's why our country needs a reality check from the rest of those that occupy this world.

Bunch of cowards should be ashamed to call themselves American.

originally posted by: RickyD
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.

In a Senate trial Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the trial and rule on Motions.
Each Senator will also be "seated" for the trial under "oath".

The rules of the Senate trial, including if and how many and what witnesses are called are determined by a simple majority vote prior to the beginning of the trial.

That means that only 3 GOP Senators would need to object to having the Whistle Blower testify in order for that plan to be scuttled. Senator Grassley is one GOP Senator that has been outspoken about protecting the identity of the WB. Senator Romney probably also falls into that camp. I can see Senator Marco Rubio object to forcing the WB to appear publicly. There are likely more GOP Senators that are not comfortable with setting a precedent that Whistle-Blowers can be stripped of their legal protections of anonymity.

I can also imagine a scenario where the WB refuses on legal grounds citing the WB Protections. I believe in that scenario Chief Justice Roberts in consultation with the Senate Parliamentarian would rule on the matter.

Given all of that, I find it very unlikely the Whistle Blower will be compelled to testify.

It looks like the odds of Whistleblower Ciaramella testifying, will increase after this filing?

GOP Filing: twitter.com...

a reply to: scrounger

A Whistle-Blower complaint does not need to be credible in order to be made.

It does need to "Appear Credible" in order to be passed on to appropriate committees and authorities.

Inspector General Joseph Maguire was responsible for investigating the complaint and determining that it "appeared credible". After that congressional committees were responsible for further investigating to determine the veracity of the complaint.

When alleged crimes are prosecuted in court, investigators are sometimes questioned, but the individual that called 911 to report suspicious activity is not.

The Whistle Blower complaint is not evidence or testimony. It is not assigned any inherent veracity until the IG does a preliminary investigation. Nothing from that complaint is included in an indictment unless it has been verified through investigation and supported by evidence and under oath testimony of others.

Why is the whistleblower so important? The information has been corroborated over and over again including by trump himself.
They just want to get this person's identity out there so that they can be harassed possibly into taking back their story.
We call know why trump wants this person outed. So they can be harassed.
Its why you all want him outed too.
You do not care about the truth you only care about defending trump no matter what.
I for one have had a belly full of it. Its sickening.

originally posted by: carewemust
It looks like the odds of Whistleblower Ciaramella testifying, will increase after this filing?

GOP Filing: twitter.com...

I do not understand how accusations of bias, legitimate or not, are relevant to considering the evidence that has been uncovered as a result?

Two rival street gangs. One gang member calls 911 and accuses a rival gang member of being responsible for a drive by shooting.

The police don't take his word for it, they investigate, interview a dozen witnesses that corroborate the accusation and indict the accused gang member for the drive by shooting.

How does the bias of the original 911 caller invalidate the evidence uncovered once it was investigated?

The only value to the 911 caller's identity being exposed would be for retaliatory purposes.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Why is the whistleblower so important? The information has been corroborated over and over again including by trump himself.
They just want to get this person's identity out there so that they can be harassed possibly into taking back their story.
We call know why trump wants this person outed. So they can be harassed.
Its why you all want him outed too.
You do not care about the truth you only care about defending trump no matter what.
I for one have had a belly full of it. Its sickening.

Its partisan. You dont care about the truth either or you would be screaming for Bidens head on a platter too. You make excuses for Biden and then root for the Democrats going after Trump for doing the same thing to a lesser degree.

What matters here is that despite the dog-whistling to Trump-haters, this is only going to help Trump win in 2020, and it further degrades the Democrat brand. So this is good.

I personally don't care that Trump tried to get Biden investigated for corruption while he was VP. And you clearly dont care that Biden used his position to shield his son from investigations. I personally think your sick, but that's just my opinion.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The reason is because the whistleblower has conflicts of interests and in this case his connections to Adam Schiff, democarts and the heavy protection by the media really shows how one sided it has being.

originally posted by: ChefFox
a reply to: Sillyolme

The reason is because the whistleblower has conflicts of interests

That is possible. Anybody in DC right now I imagine has biases and is associated with politicians of one party or another.

I don't disagree with the possibility that the Whistle-Blower has bias or is associated with a partisan politician.

But the Whistle blower complaint is not evidence in the indictment. It is simply the 911 call.

The Inspector General evaluated the credibility of the claims before forwarding it on. The investigative committees have compiled testimony, transcripts, text messages etc. which is the evidence any indictment would be based on, not the Whistle-blower complaint.

Please let me know if I am missing some important piece of that logic.

a reply to: Gothmog

Then who told the world about trump trying to trade military funding for a fake investigation into Bidens son then....

Why reveal them when there's plenty of incriminating testimony already?

So the pitchfork mafia can threaten their lives?

I'd love to know how much xuenchen is paid to sit here night and day every single day of their life/lives to constantly spread disinformation and propaganda.

Why do you hate America so much?

You're a traitor to your people.

One thing we all need to understand is quid pro quo happens all the time, and have seen it with Obama/Biden over and over. This difference is whether it is for personal gains or not. With Eric Ciaramella he left the White House in 2017 as an Obama leftover, so how is it he is involved in any of this in the first place.

Trump knows Ukraine was deeply involved in the 2016 election fiasco to include the Steel Dossier, and he wants ALL to be outed, and so should everyone else. Quid pro quo to push Ukraine to take a more aggressive act towards 2016 is not illegal and not outside of any bounds for ANY President. I'm sure it was talked about, but now we know it never materialized, so quid pro was not even used in the end even though it was perfectly justified.

Impeachment would only be if they could prove quid pro quo happened for personal gains and that is impossible for the left to prove. Biden's name in the mix is there for good reason, and not just some smear operation. Biden has quid pro quo blood all over him for personal gains that go down the path of money, so PLEASE spot with the oh the horrors routine.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Why is the whistleblower so important?

So you want Trump impeached on Democrats 'say so'.

Yall could have teached the NAZIS, and KGB something.

originally posted by: StevenCrowley
a reply to: Gothmog

Then who told the world about trump trying to trade military funding for a fake investigation into Bidens son then....

The Dems made the shi_ up
Its something like Peter Pan or the Tooth Fairy.
New one - The Whistle Blower.
Will it make Mother Goose's book ?

originally posted by: RickyD
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.

The whole thing is a farce. Ambassador Taylor should have been laughed out of the room when he admitted his source was a NYT hit piece and not actually being in on any phone call.

a reply to: xuenchen

Adam Schiff making excuses so his partisan hack wouldn't expose himself as a coup plotter.

a reply to: fencesitter85

What incriminating testimony? Please cite specific statements.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: RickyD
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.

The whole thing is a farce. Ambassador Taylor should have been laughed out of the room when he admitted his source was a NYT hit piece and not actually being in on any phone call.

Ambassador Taylor was on several phone calls, attended many meetings on the matter as well as provided some fairly damning text exchanges if I recall.