“There’s No Reason to Call Me as a Witness!” – SCHIFF SQUIRMS About Testifying Before the Senate

Sure. Right after Dirty Donnie testifies under oath. Once he's sworn in, the House can ask him about ANYTHING.

Deal ?

 

The only legal protection is against retribution not his indentity or from whom he got his information and with whom he discussed it.

 

The accused are not required to testify in our country are they. Has Schiff called Trump to testify or something. Did Clinton have to testify in his?

 

Under oath about? The two phone calls which the transcripts were already released?

 

What's a probable cause he is engaged in corruption here?

 

By that standard, Schiff isn't required to testify about anything.

Glad we cleared that up. Now we won't see any more nonsense about this topic.

 

Nope

 

I have, there is no legal protection as I stated.

"Rep. Adam Schiff has repeatedly stated in impeachment hearings in front of the House Intelligence Committee that the Ukraine whistleblower has “a statutory right to anonymity” and blocked Republican questions about him.

The problem, many legal experts say, is that the committee chairman, a California Democrat, is wrong — no specific legal requirement to shield the whistleblower’s identity from the public exists."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...tleblower-has-no-statutory-right-to-anonymity

 

He's not the person being impeached he is a fact witness, learn the difference.

 

Biden is being investigated, so let's investigate Nunes too

 

Let Schiff and Pelosi be subjected to the same treatment than Trump also.

 

if he was there, not looking good for him, can't wait to hear the results of the ethics committee

 

the report that he committed these abuses and the fact he traveled there exactly when Giuliani's guy said he did - it's known now, so it will be investigated

 

you can make up your own reality if you want, but the identity of whistle-blowers is protected

 

Actually, I'm perfectly fine with an investigation of Biden. Dems are not trying to protect Biden - they are against the way the investigation was approached.

 

if they break the law, they will be

 

Dont trust gatewaypundit

 

he would of said no, if it was not true imo

 

cite the exact law making it so.

 

Schiff has created a new standard now. With his new system you get to be investigated to find a crime to pin on you. So they should also be investigated. Sound fair to me.

 

that was republicans, remember Star, no crime found, so they go after Clinton for a consensual affair

in this case Trump did this, all the witnesses prove this as well as Trump's own words to the public afterwards

 

look it up yourself, it's a crime to knowingly release the name of the whistle-blower

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...kraine-whistleblower-has-a-statutory-right-to

"This is what the law says, word-for-word: “Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing information to a law enforcement authority any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more then 10 years, or both.”"

 

So there isn't any then.
You do know that on this board it's up to the one afirming the existance of something that has to produce the proof, not the one denying it.

 

He doesn't meet the definition of a WB and even if he was there is no requirement for anonymity. Trump has a right to face his accuser.

 

It doesn't say he must have anonymity, only making threats. Your point is as bogus as saying Trump intimidated witnesses by using his 1A rights of free speech, there was no threat made.