Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

[PoS]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff made clear on Saturday that the Ukraine whistleblower won't be testifying in the impeachment inquiry, arguing that the individual's testimony would be "redundant and unnecessary."

House Republicans earlier Saturday had submitted a list of witnesses to Democrats that they'd like to testify as part of the chamber's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump and Ukraine. The list included the whistleblower and former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden.

Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I know you Trump-bots don't have any respect for our laws and won't bend yourself to logic, but it is illegal to disclose the identity of a whistleblower. If you don't like the law, you should change it. It's there to prevent retaliation, which Trump and many Republicans have already called for. Schiff is completely right on this, the whistleblower's testimony is completely and totally irrelevant at this point as his initial accusation has been confirmed under oath by multiple first-hand accounts from top Trump administration officials.

As Cardinal put it a while back:

You make an anonymous call to the police alerting them that somebody in the neighborhood has the bodies of thirty Girl Scouts buried in his back yard. The police to come to investigate and find...exactly thirty girls courts buried in his back yard.

At that point, your identity, political lean, and whether you got your information first hand or second hand, really doesn’t matter so much.

The idiotic argument this PoS is trying to make is that even though we found the thirty dead bodies and have multiple first hand accounts of the murders, we need to actively attack and analyze the background of the person that initially informed the police. The case and evidence against Trump have nothing to do with the whistleblower. Your attempts to distract are pathetic and transparent.

 

[PoS]

I know you Trump-bots don't have any respect for our laws and won't bend yourself to logic, but it is illegal to disclose the identity of a whistleblower. If you don't like the law, you should change it. It's there to prevent retaliation, which Trump and many Republicans have already called for. Schiff is completely right on this, the whistleblower's testimony is completely and totally irrelevant at this point as his initial accusation has been confirmed under oath by multiple first-hand accounts from top Trump administration officials.

As Cardinal put it a while back:



The idiotic argument this PoS is trying to make is that even though we found the thirty dead bodies and have multiple first hand accounts of the murders, we need to actively attack and analyze the background of the person that initially informed the police. The case and evidence against Trump have nothing to do with the whistleblower. Your attempts to distract are pathetic and transparent.

Im asking a question. Why do you lefties always make it personal and start calling people who dont share your opinion trump-bots? If anyone is a member of a cult its you and your ilk.

And its not illegal for Trump to out the whistleblower either.

Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower? Experts Say It Would Not Violate Any Laws | West Virginia Public Broadcasting

"If Trump thinks he knows the name, he can come out and say it, and he's probably as protected as anyone is," said Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama.

Litt and several other legal experts who talked to NPR said Trump uttering or tweeting the name could in theory trigger an article of impeachment for retaliating against a whistleblower, but it would not run afoul of any federal criminal statutes.

Similarly, if a news outlet, member of Congress or member of the public outed the whistleblower, legal experts said, no criminal law would be violated.

"There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal law," said Dan Meyer, a lawyer and the former executive director of the intelligence community whistleblower program. "Congress has never provided that protection."

 

[Master Debator]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

You tell us. Why bury the phone call in a secure vault and prevent anyone you can from testifying? The whistleblower provided second hand information, we now have first hand information from Taylor, Sondland, and Yovanovich. If the Trump administration wanted to clear anything up they could of had Pompeo, Giuliani and Mulvaney come explain the whole thing to Congress.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Im asking a question. Why do you lefties always make it personal and start calling people who dont share your opinion trump-bots? If anyone is a member of a cult its you and your ilk.
And its not illegal for Trump to out the whistleblower either.
Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower? Experts Say It Would Not Violate Any Laws | West Virginia Public Broadcasting

Yet you can't tell us WHY it's important who the whistleblower is or what specific gotcha testimony you think he can provide. Everything he reported in his whistleblower complaint has been confirmed under oath by Trump administration officials giving first hand accounts.

As long as you ignore Trump's crimes while attempting to attack and distract, you're going to labeled a Trump-bot. If you actually wanted the truth you'd be railing against Trump trying to prevent everyone around him from testifying. You don't.

 

[Allan]

The 3 stages of Trump supporter denial:

1. The whistleblower is lying.
2. The whistleblower is telling the truth, but nothing is impeachable.
3. Ya got another bottle of wine handy?

 

[Mycroft]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

Schiffty knows that the Republicans will hammer Ciaramella about his contact with Schiffy's office...who he talked to, when, what about, etc. Schiffty knows the Reps will hammer Ciaramella about his history...why was he fired by the WH in 2017, why was he let back into the WH and by whom, what relationship did he have with Biden, etc.

There is so much that will be exposed about the Dems and the Trump haters if the Reps have access to Ciaramella that Schiffty absolutely CANNOT allow him to testify.

But that's okay. If the House Dems are stupid enough to ever let this get to the Senate, then Ciaramella WILL be called, he WILL testify and, unless he outright lies, the truth WILL be revealed.

 

[Airyaman]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

Here is the whistleblower's report: Trump whistleblower complaint: Read full declassified document

Now, feel free to point out which part of it has not been corroborated by the testimony that has been released to date.

IOW, the initial complaint, as stated in the WB report, was mostly 2nd hand information. Thus, why would the whistleblower be a good witness in the first place?

If this were indeed a court of law, the whistleblower would never be a witness because their testimony would be hearsay.

 

[Irredentist]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

The only reason Republicans want to interview the whistleblower is so they can try and claim he was politically motivated, out to get the president, or some BS. But that's irrelevant. His complaint has been verified by numerous witnesses. His motivations are completely immaterial to the impeachment case. Which of course is why Republicans want to distract us by interviewing him.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The only reason Republicans want to interview the whistleblower is so they can try and claim he was politically motivated, out to get the president, or some BS. But that's irrelevant. His complaint has been verified by numerous witnesses. His motivations are completely immaterial to the impeachment case. Which of course is why Republicans want to distract us by interviewing him.

Or find out who this person is since there i a threat to their physical safety.

 

[Torus34]

Responding to the headline, what Congressman Schiff said appears to be true, based upon what we know of the corroborating evidence provided by others who have testified under oath.

 

[SkyFox76]

Schiffty knows that the Republicans will hammer Ciaramella about his contact with Schiffy's office...who he talked to, when, what about, etc. Schiffty knows the Reps will hammer Ciaramella about his history...why was he fired by the WH in 2017, why was he let back into the WH and by whom, what relationship did he have with Biden, etc.

There is so much that will be exposed about the Dems and the Trump haters if the Reps have access to Ciaramella that Schiffty absolutely CANNOT allow him to testify.

But that's okay. If the House Dems are stupid enough to ever let this get to the Senate, then Ciaramella WILL be called, he WILL testify and, unless he outright lies, the truth WILL be revealed.

Is that the guy GP has claimed is the WB?

Let's just say for laughs that it is him. Do you think for even an instant that Trump wouldn't be all over the guy like a wet suit with tweets and comments in his pressers? I mean really?

It's not like Trump doesn't grab onto CT's and carry on to the point of looking delusional, but now he's just paying dumb when the name is right out there for you to comment on, but he hasn't. Why do you suppose that is?

And let's add all your details in the mix. Just for good measure let's also say a PI sniffed around and found a whole closet full of Trump photos with the faces scratched off. And a memo stating Trump is a baby eating pervert who should rot in hell.

Would that change the fact that one by one a line of people have come forward and confirmed what was in the WB letter?

We've seen the call and we know it matches. The administration has confirmed that there were concerns over the call so it was moved to the coded server. We know Giuliani has been shoulder deep slithering around wreaking havoc between here and Ukraine. We know the money was held up and that there were repeated efforts to get the Ukraine president to announce they were opening an investigation.

Do you honestly think all that would just go "poof" if the WB (regardless of whether it's this guy or Elvis) were to walk in wearing a I hate Trump hat and say: yeah I'm the WB and stand by my letter.

What would that change as far as all the testimony under oath?

 

[washunut]

Is that the guy GP has claimed is the WB?

Let's just say for laughs that it is him. Do you think for even an instant that Trump wouldn't be all over the guy like a wet suit with tweets and comments in his pressers? I mean really?

It's not like Trump doesn't grab onto CT's and carry on to the point of looking delusional, but now he's just paying dumb when the name is right out there for you to comment on, but he hasn't. Why do you suppose that is?

And let's add all your details in the mix. Just for good measure let's also say a PI sniffed around and found a whole closet full of Trump photos with the faces scratched off. And a memo stating Trump is a baby eating pervert who should rot in hell.

Would that change the fact that one by one a line of people have come forward and confirmed what was in the WB letter?

We've seen the call and we know it matches. The administration has confirmed that there were concerns over the call so it was moved to the coded server. We know Giuliani has been shoulder deep slithering around wreaking havoc between here and Ukraine. We know the money was held up and that there were repeated efforts to get the Ukraine president to announce they were opening an investigation.

Do you honestly think all that would just go "poof" if the WB (regardless of whether it's this guy or Elvis) were to walk in wearing a I hate Trump hat and say: yeah I'm the WB and stand by my letter.

What would that change as far as all the testimony under oath?

I guess you folks have never of due process in this country. If the police do an illegal search that turns up evidence that someone did a crime, then nothing from the search can be used at trial. So if the original complaint falls under that category then the follow ups caused by the original WB complaint in this case is "poinsoned"

Now folks can say the impeachment process is not a trial and is just a political action (Stunt?). That being the case then folks in the House know they are voting on something that has no chance of actually convicting someone but has the effect of hopefully hurting the president and senators who do not vote to convict.

I wouldn't mind Trump losing in 2020 thus I am afraid this tactic will backfire as it did in 1998.

 

[JackA]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

What could a cross examination possibly elicit that would undercut Trump's own "transcript" of the phone call the whistle blower reported? Unless there's an answer to that question, these calls to produce the whistle blower can only be for the purpose of exposing him.

 

[SkyFox76]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

Let's say you represent Trump in the hearing. What would you ask the WB?

 

[Cardinal]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

Since all of the central claims within the WB report have been corroborated and confirmed multiple times by no fewer than seven first hand accounts, what do you expect to get out of the WB’s additional testimony?

 

[Perotista]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

You know I have been pretty much indifferent to this whole impeachment process. My main interest in it is how it will effect the upcoming elections. Getting information for my Perotista senate, house and presidency forecasts. Not whether Trump will be or won't be impeached. I put most of what I have seen and heard down to ultra high partisan political propaganda.

This throws a different light on the subject. I didn't comment on the thread of a lynching, mainly because I didn't care if Trump thought that or not or what others said about Trump's use of the word lynching. This in my opinion means Trump isn't going to get a fair hearing. That the Democrats have stacked and packed the Jury so to speak. I don't care if Trump is or isn't impeached. If Hillary had won, I wouldn't care if she was impeached or not. My disdain for both is ultra high. But in this case, I do think Trump's use of the word lynching seems to be correct.

It does seem the Democrats want to hide anything and everyone that might weaken their case. This is totally wrong. I'm still indifferent about impeachment knowing it is strictly a partisan affair, a battle between our two major parties which I don't belong to neither and highly dislike both. What it does is pique my interest beyond just how impeachment might effect the upcoming election.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

He's right AND he's trying to protect the whistleblower and their family from being gunned down by crazy and Christian Republicans.

Are you religious?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

Because it's been corroborated multiple times now.

Whistleblower Complaint: What Impeachment Testimony, Public Record Corroborate : NPR

Let met you in on something. Usually, when someone gives up a criminal scumbag, they usually do it because they don't like the guy - as was probably the case with the whistleblower. Then, when multiple witnesses corroborate the accusations, the investigators know they have a case. The defense, knowing their guy is guilty, will attack the initial guy that gave up their scumbag defendant in an effort to obfuscate the fact that multiple people corroborated his testimony. This usually doesn't work, as even those of average intelligence can see through it, but you get a dumb enough jury - ie: Trump supporters, and sometimes they will let the scumbag off the hook despite the mountain of evidence against him.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The whistleblower is an American Hero.

Trump is just a sleazy politican and crook.

Who are Christians backing this Sunday?

 

[Mach]

Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?

Strange that you get every, single, thing about this incorrect.

First, the whistle-blower, and the laws that Republicans and Democrats crafted to help try and keep them anonymous, are who are attempting to keep it secret. Democrats are simply following the law. Republicans, and you, appear to believe whistle-blowers...when they oppose the party you support, should NOT be secret, and deserve to be demonized and attacked by the combined might for 40% of the nation...for doing the right thing.
Trump likened it be deserving of death..but here you are in your righteously wisdom, pondering why the whistle-blower is being protected. What happened to your ethics and sense of right and wrong?

Second, the whistle-blower afforded us a formal complaint that alerted us to wrongdoing in the White House. We have been alerted, the whistle-blower's job is technically done. We have the transcript and testimony to describe what happened...a second-hand accounting of those same things, is 100% irrelevant, and you know it. Had his second-hand accounting been the ONLY evidence, it would never have been deemed credible/urgent by the ICIG. You lose either way.

Republicans believe they have outed the whistle-blowers protected identity, and have been attacking him by name, in their propaganda outlets, including the predictable spreading of those attacks like you are doing here. That you do it obliquely doesn't fool anyone.

Not being able to argue against the facts, Republicans, including their supporters like you, have taken it upon themselves to relentlessly attack and smear anyone and everyone who says anything bad about Trump. Decorated veterans, gold star families, people they hand-picked and hired and beamed about only months prior, etc. It's as trashy and deplorable as it gets.

It's sad to see people so focused on what right wing propaganda pushes, and not use their brain, or conscience.

Republicans think its cute to attack the whistle-blower, as the "foil" for Trump's style of attacking people rather than having facts or reason on his side. A con-artist with a troupe of monkeys to help him fling ****...

 

[Somerville]

The whistleblower is an American Hero.

Trump is just a sleazy politican and crook.

Who are Christians backing this Sunday?

Depends upon who you label as "Christian" and who those belonging to any one of the many groups which call themselves "Christian" would label as "Christian"

 

[JasperL]

Im asking a question. Why do you lefties always make it personal and start calling people who dont share your opinion trump-bots? If anyone is a member of a cult its you and your ilk.

You know the answer to the question, so why ask it? You also know the purpose of calling him, and it has nothing, zero, to do with the case, but to smear the person who reported it to Congress. If you support that, you just need to say it and own the position.

And its not illegal for Trump to out the whistleblower either.

Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower? Experts Say It Would Not Violate Any Laws | West Virginia Public Broadcasting

Then let Trump out him. Make it official that POTUS has a policy of outing WB who comply with the law and report wrongdoing with the expectation, rooted in the law, that their identity will be protected, and that the official position of the President, or alternatively the GOP Congress, is to engage in retribution against anyone reporting wrongdoing in his government.

 

[Somerville]

More on why the GOPers want to call the whistleblower to testify before the impeachment hearings -- primarily as a distraction.

Republicans attempt to move impeachment inquiry away from Trump

More than 2,500 pages of interview transcripts released over the past week provide a road map for the emerging Republican strategy. The documents show the extent to which GOP lawmakers involved in the hearings have focused on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, Democratic political targets and other subjects favored by Trump allies — much of it ancillary to the probe at hand, according to a Washington Post review of the documents.

One GOP lawmaker repeatedly tried to pressure a witness into saying what he wanted to hear about a Ukrainian company that employed Biden’s son. Another member quizzed a former ambassador in the impeachment inquiry about her national heritage, seeming to probe for bias. And a third Republican interrogated the same diplomat about whether her staff “monitored” the social media account of an alt-right conspiracy theorist, whose main claim to fame is smearing a Washington pizzeria as the site of a fictional Democratic pedophile ring.

There were also questions about the Clinton Foundation and long-gone officials from the Obama administration; probing of witnesses over the attorneys they hired or the release of opening statements; and inquiries about whether witnesses improperly “unmasked” the identities of Trump officials under investigation.

The sprawling list of potential witnesses named by Republicans on Saturday continued the pattern. They included Hunter Biden, whose father is a leading Democratic candidate to challenge Trump in 2020; Hunter Biden’s business partner Devon Archer; the unnamed whistleblower, who Trump and some of his allies have campaigned to publicly identify; the researcher Nellie Ohr of Fusion GPS, which commissioned a dossier linking Russia and Trump; and Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian American who worked with the Democratic National Committee.

Republicans also asked to call two witnesses who have already testified behind closed doors, a request that appears likely to be granted by Democrats: National Security Council official Tim Morrison and former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, each of whom corroborated parts of the whistleblower’s complaint while also providing some cover for Republicans.

 

[JasperL]

Schiffty knows that the Republicans will hammer Ciaramella about his contact with Schiffy's office...who he talked to, when, what about, etc. Schiffty knows the Reps will hammer Ciaramella about his history...why was he fired by the WH in 2017, why was he let back into the WH and by whom, what relationship did he have with Biden, etc.

There is so much that will be exposed about the Dems and the Trump haters if the Reps have access to Ciaramella that Schiffty absolutely CANNOT allow him to testify.

But that's okay. If the House Dems are stupid enough to ever let this get to the Senate, then Ciaramella WILL be called, he WILL testify and, unless he outright lies, the truth WILL be revealed.

And Humpty Dumpty Trump the Dump knows that ad hominem attacks feed his idiot base.