Schiff Says House Democrats May Not Ask Whistleblower To Testify

[dannydorko]

They are not only traitors, they are also stupid – I am looking at you, Nunes, Meadows, Jordan, et al.

"Hey! What about me? I'm stupid, too."

[Citizen1]

Keep it an impeachment inquiry while piling on more evidence of wrongdoing and hope for a resignation?

[kemo]

Totally agree. Take his/her deposition in friendly confines, then publish the most damning parts.

[castor_troy]

The point being that you don’t need that. Since Trump released the transcript (even if edited) and the ambassador texts were released, there’s independent evidence provided of basically everything that the whistleblower reported. So their testimony is no longer critical to building a case.

[cmbudinger]

2. Signal other whistleblowers that they can come forward safely

While the others are important, this right here strikes me as the one with the most immediate benefits.

[playitagainrowlf]

Let Republicans establish the only reason they don’t get on board is that there hasn’t been a full house vote to start the impeachment inquiry and they can’t hear from the WB, let them say in for days, then do both.

Oooh, I like that (presuming the WB is willing to play along…)

[fiftygigs]

our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected

No need for the whistleblower to repeat what we already know. Trump has admitted his guilt.

There’s a lot of administration people who need to spend some time in prison.

[ronbyers]

If the campaign financing charges are as grave as they seem, a lot of Republican congress critters and their staff members deserve jail time as well. It looks like the Russians and Ukrainians have been funding the Republicans for a long, long time.

[jonney_5]

presuming the WB is willing to play along

May be the name gets out anyway, at that at point no reason not to.

[daulphin]

Are you gay, jkrogman? If not, you may not understand how our community is very good about not outing people, until they start hurting other gay people with their hypocrisy. I am as queer as thunderclapnewman, and I would have said the same thing.

I guess we are homophobic ourselves… not. But Lindsay Graham is a fucking hypocrite who has put our lives in danger for years while hiding in his closet. I don’t care if he’s still a virgin, he is vile and deserves to be outed.

[Akimbo]

Oh absolutely keep it an inquiry and keep investigating. I’m not suggesting a vote on articles of impeachment, I’m asking whether the House has to do what trump and the GOP are clamoring for and hold a formal, full House vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry.

[godless]

This looks Schiffty to me. A CIA leaker, not a whistleblower, spills the beans on a presidential phone call to kick of this parade then will not be called to testify? This is why Impeachment inquiries are supposed to be public and in the Judiciary Committee and not behind closed doors at the House Stupidity Committee. If Schiff is so worried about whistleblowers, why doesn’t he work to get Manning, Reality Winner and Assange out of jail?

[ralph_vonholst]

It’s not that funny, really, but Trump as a beefy forearmed Russian “ krest’yanka” gave me the giggles. But note the tiny hands.

He’s so very great leap forward.

[Citizen1]

Would you define the difference you see between a CIA leaker and a whistleblower, as it pertains to this proposed testimony?

[Psych]

Probably things they can verify without the WB’s testimony.

[bcgister]

I’m asking whether the House has to do what trump and the GOP are clamoring for and hold a formal, full House vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry.

Apparently no, by both precedent and rules: (https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-house-vote-authorize-impeachment-inquiry)

[sandi]

First time I’ve ever been a grammar nazi, but I wish folks would learn the difference between

• “may not” == forbidden
• “might not” == considering options.

Not sure if Schiff has forbidden the other Dems, or only suggesting they haven’t decided.

[castor_troy]

Definition of MAY

[cervantes]

I guess we are homophobic ourselves… not.

No, but maybe we should ask what the effect is of such rhetoric, as opposed to only asking what the motivation is behind it.

[Citizen1]

Thanks for clearing that up! I was trying to remember if I had used those words in any of my comments.