Whistleblower will not testify at the impeachment inquiry
If there is one person you would think should be compelled to speak before the impeachment inquiry it would be the whistleblower who’s blowing is being used as justification for the inquiry in the first place, but apparently that is not going to happen because talks broke down without an agreement.
Here is more:
The whistleblower whose complaint launched impeachment proceedings against President Trump is unlikely to testify to Congress, as talks have ceased between his legal team and committee leaders.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has overseen depositions in Democrats’ impeachment proceeding, was initially eager for the whistleblower to testify before citing concern about the person being identified.
A source familiar with the discussions told the Washington Examiner that talks halted over potential testimony from the whistleblower and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first’s claims.
“There is no indication that either of the original whistleblowers will be called to testify or appear before the Senate or House Intelligence committees. There is no further discussion ongoing between the legal team and the committees,” the person said.
First of all it does not seem like there should be any discussion taking place, the people who made the claims that lead to this whole fiasco should be testifying at the inquiry one way or the other so they can be cross examined.
Secondly, it makes one wonder what they are hiding and lends credence to the new claim that this whistleblower was a CIA spy who was planted in the White House.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
This may just put the fear of God in them. If it winds up in the Senate for a trial he will be called and all will be revealed. I am starting to think it is less likely they will in the end vote for impeachment. The GOPers are getting galvanized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s an interesting point. There is no doubt in my mind this was all for show when they started and that the House would impeach knowing the Senate wouldn’t remove him. This would have given House Dems a campaign issue. But you could be right, this might be too dangerous a game and they may just drag this out passed the election with no vote.
LikeLike
Something smells about this…Okay reeks!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no doubt this whole thing has been in the works since Trump took office.
LikeLike
If what Rush is reporting is correct about the name and position of the whistleblower, he isn’t a whistleblower, but a leaker of hearsay information, and he was in deed put in place by the former Communist Brennen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is sounding more and more like that is the case, this has been a set up since the beginning.
LikeLike
They say…
The whistleblower was a CIA plant to spy on Trump
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what I am hearing…
LikeLike
And while Trump wouldn’t know this Obama holdover or that he was spying why didn’t he or those on his staff charged with protecting Trump clean house on day one? Surely the WH could function without all the dead wood functionaries. And Surely the WH is not unlike the House where a rep had an average of four sides during JFK’s time while several years back each rep had an average of 44 aides- surely that number is even higher today. If we keep in mind there is no place for common sense today anywhere including in the WH we need not scratch our heads.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is the million dollar question. Trump’s biggest mistake was not firing everybody and starting from scratch and now he is paying for it. I would be willing to bet that the person who convinced him to keep people on was also part of the deep state.
LikeLike
Agreed. Trump should have fired every member of the White House Staff down to the dishwasher in the cafeteria.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the “whistleblower” does not testify, the whole business is unconstitutional. The 6th Amendment is very clear on the point.
“… to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor….”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was going to mention that in the post but then I started thinking that maybe it was different when it came to impeachment, but I have to think the same constitutional guarantees would apply.
LikeLike