Schiff (D) Still Says He Does Not Know Who the Whistleblower Is

[Nutty Cortez]

From The Hill…

Schiff also rebuffed the suggestion by the president’s defense team that he had coordinated with the anonymous government whistleblower whose allegations sparked the impeachment investigation.

“It is nonsense. I don’t even know who the whistleblower is,” Schiff said.

Schiff had previously told MSNBC that his committee had not had direct contact with the whistleblower, despite later reports that revealed the person behind the complaint had made contact with a Democratic House Intelligence staffer.

The whistleblower had come to the committee before filing the formal complaint, Schiff acknowledged Saturday, and staffers directed the anonymous figure to contact a lawyer and the inspector general of the intelligence community. That’s the common practice, he said – one encouraged by leaders of the Intelligence panels in both parties.

The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee does NOT know who the whistleblower is but his staff does? This is clearly just a smokescreen to try and avoid being called as a witness in the impeachment trial he is currently involved in.



CUE LAUGH TRACK

 

[ObamacareForever]

From The Hill…

Schiff also rebuffed the suggestion by the president’s defense team that he had coordinated with the anonymous government whistleblower whose allegations sparked the impeachment investigation.

“It is nonsense. I don’t even know who the whistleblower is,” Schiff said.

Schiff had previously told MSNBC that his committee had not had direct contact with the whistleblower, despite later reports that revealed the person behind the complaint had made contact with a Democratic House Intelligence staffer.

The whistleblower had come to the committee before filing the formal complaint, Schiff acknowledged Saturday, and staffers directed the anonymous figure to contact a lawyer and the inspector general of the intelligence community. That’s the common practice, he said – one encouraged by leaders of the Intelligence panels in both parties.

The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee does NOT know who the whistleblower is but his staff does? This is clearly just a smokescreen to try and avoid being called as a witness in the impeachment trial he is currently involved in.



CUE LAUGH TRACK

So you think its impossible to contact congress anonymously?
That's ridiculous.

 

[Zam-Zam]

From The Hill…

Schiff also rebuffed the suggestion by the president’s defense team that he had coordinated with the anonymous government whistleblower whose allegations sparked the impeachment investigation.

“It is nonsense. I don’t even know who the whistleblower is,” Schiff said.

Schiff had previously told MSNBC that his committee had not had direct contact with the whistleblower, despite later reports that revealed the person behind the complaint had made contact with a Democratic House Intelligence staffer.

The whistleblower had come to the committee before filing the formal complaint, Schiff acknowledged Saturday, and staffers directed the anonymous figure to contact a lawyer and the inspector general of the intelligence community. That’s the common practice, he said – one encouraged by leaders of the Intelligence panels in both parties.

The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee does NOT know who the whistleblower is but his staff does? This is clearly just a smokescreen to try and avoid being called as a witness in the impeachment trial he is currently involved in.



CUE LAUGH TRACK

I guess a fair-minded question might be this:

If one does not know whom the person making an allegation is, how would you evaluate the credibility of that person?

The obvious answer would seem to be "You can't".

Ergo, their testimony becomes a whole lot less credible.

 

[Dino]

From The Hill…

Schiff also rebuffed the suggestion by the president’s defense team that he had coordinated with the anonymous government whistleblower whose allegations sparked the impeachment investigation.

“It is nonsense. I don’t even know who the whistleblower is,” Schiff said.

Schiff had previously told MSNBC that his committee had not had direct contact with the whistleblower, despite later reports that revealed the person behind the complaint had made contact with a Democratic House Intelligence staffer.

The whistleblower had come to the committee before filing the formal complaint, Schiff acknowledged Saturday, and staffers directed the anonymous figure to contact a lawyer and the inspector general of the intelligence community. That’s the common practice, he said – one encouraged by leaders of the Intelligence panels in both parties.

The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee does NOT know who the whistleblower is but his staff does? This is clearly just a smokescreen to try and avoid being called as a witness in the impeachment trial he is currently involved in.



CUE LAUGH TRACK

If I'm Mitch McConnell here is my deal...

You want Parnas to testify? You want Bolton to testify?
That happens when Schiff, Bidens, and Ciaramella all agree to be witnesses.

If not, NO DEAL.

 

[middleview]

I guess a fair-minded question might be this:

If one does not know whom the person making an allegation is, how would you evaluate the credibility of that person?

The obvious answer would seem to be "You can't".

Ergo, their testimony becomes a whole lot less credible.

Since Trump released his version of the call...why does the WB even matter?

 

[Zam-Zam]

Since Trump released his version of the call...why does the WB even matter?

That's a fair question.

If a source is anonymous, the testimony alone is, of course, worthless.

If, however, you can corroborate the information independent of the testimony, then the testimony is not needed.

Yet, Mr. Schiff seems to believe the WB's testimony is paramount. Which would indicate that it is not corroborated independently. Which renders it....worthless.

So, yes. The WB doesn't matter, nor does what the WB has to say matter.

On with the show.

 

[middleview]

If I'm Mitch McConnell here is my deal...

You want Parnas to testify? You want Bolton to testify?
That happens when Schiff, Bidens, and Ciaramella all agree to be witnesses.

If not, NO DEAL.

What would the Bidens know about Trump's hold on aid?

The WB isn't relevant since what he reported matches the Trump version of the call.

So why have them testfy? So that Trump can smear Biden in time to keep him out of the primaries...exactly why he wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation.
Why call the WB? Revenge.

 

[middleview]

That's a fair question.

If a source is anonymous, the testimony alone is, of course, worthless.

If, however, you can corroborate the information independent of the testimony, then the testimony is not needed.

Yet, Mr. Schiff seems to believe the WB's testimony is paramount. Which would indicate that it is not corroborated independently. Which renders it....worthless.

So, yes. The WB doesn't matter, nor does what the WB has to say matter.

On with the show.

The WB info is a match for Trump's version of the call.

 

[Zam-Zam]

The WB info is a match for Trump's version of the call.

It isn't.

Simply because we know who Trump is. He's willing to sign his name to it. Whether he is to be believed is up to each individual to decide for themselves, but because we know who he is, his credibility can be assessed by those rendering judgement.

The WB continues to hide in the shadows. As long as that remains the case, his or her credibility cannot be assessed, and thus the testimony is worthless.

 

[FakeName]

I guess a fair-minded question might be this:

If one does not know whom the person making an allegation is, how would you evaluate the credibility of that person?

The obvious answer would seem to be "You can't".

Ergo, their testimony becomes a whole lot less credible.

His testimony is irrelevant......he wasn't even asked to testify.

 

[Dino]

What would the Bidens know about Trump's hold on aid?

The WB isn't relevant since what he reported matches the Trump version of the call.

So why have them testfy? So that Trump can smear Biden in time to keep him out of the primaries...exactly why he wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation.
Why call the WB? Revenge.

Don't know until we ask.
That's my deal, if Republicans can't call the witnesses they wish (AGAIN!) then absolutely no deal on witnesses.

 

[middleview]

It isn't.

Simply because we know who Trump is. He's willing to sign his name to it. Whether he is to be believed is up to each individual to decide for themselves, but because we know who he is, his credibility can be assessed by those rendering judgement.

The WB continues to hide in the shadows. As long as that remains the case, his or her credibility cannot be assessed, and thus the testimony is worthless.

There is no substantial difference between the WB complaint and Trump's.

Trump wants revenge.

 

[middleview]

Don't know until we ask.
That's my deal, if Republicans can't call the witnesses they wish (AGAIN!) then absolutely no deal on witnesses.

Don't know? Bull shit. Trump is still hoping to gain points in the election. How about if both Biden and Trump appear under oath?

 

[Zam-Zam]

There is no substantial difference between the WB complaint and Trump's.

Trump wants revenge.

I just explained the difference. One is known, one cowers in the shadows.

That's a significant difference, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[middleview]

Don't know until we ask.
That's my deal, if Republicans can't call the witnesses they wish (AGAIN!) then absolutely no deal on witnesses.

The repubs did call witnesses in the house...they did not get to call people who were not witnesses.

 

[ObamacareForever]

I guess a fair-minded question might be this:

If one does not know whom the person making an allegation is, how would you evaluate the credibility of that person?

The obvious answer would seem to be "You can't".

Ergo, their testimony becomes a whole lot less credible.

The whistleblower did give any testimony.

 

[Dino]

The repubs did call witnesses in the house...they did not get to call people who were not witnesses.

Ummm yeah

Scalise said the the resolution passed by a partisan vote in the House does allows Republicans to present subpoenas and call witnesses, they can only call ones that are “authorized” by Schiff.


“Adam Schiff, among many things, has been trying to claim that this is a fair process by saying that Republicans are allowed to ask questions,” Scalise told reporters. “Now he gets to choose all the witnesses, and him and himself only, which means it’s not a fair process on the face. But even his claim now, that Republicans can ask questions, has been undermined, because now he’s directing witnesses not to answer questions that he doesn’t want the witness to answer, if they’re asked by Republicans.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

From The Hill…

Schiff also rebuffed the suggestion by the president’s defense team that he had coordinated with the anonymous government whistleblower whose allegations sparked the impeachment investigation.

“It is nonsense. I don’t even know who the whistleblower is,” Schiff said.

Schiff had previously told MSNBC that his committee had not had direct contact with the whistleblower, despite later reports that revealed the person behind the complaint had made contact with a Democratic House Intelligence staffer.

The whistleblower had come to the committee before filing the formal complaint, Schiff acknowledged Saturday, and staffers directed the anonymous figure to contact a lawyer and the inspector general of the intelligence community. That’s the common practice, he said – one encouraged by leaders of the Intelligence panels in both parties.

The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee does NOT know who the whistleblower is but his staff does? This is clearly just a smokescreen to try and avoid being called as a witness in the impeachment trial he is currently involved in.



CUE LAUGH TRACK

Sane people say “Who cares who the whistleblower is?”

;-)

 

[Dawg]

Yeah, just ignore all those pictures and video.

Has what to do with whistleblower?

Eric is his name

 

[middleview]

I just explained the difference. One is known, one cowers in the shadows.

That's a significant difference, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

The WB complained about what he was told of the call. Trump wants to know who told the WB about the call....you know it is about payback. Gee, why would a government employee be worried about pissing Trump off?