H/T Western Journal.
The scheme that Schiff dreamed up is falling apart.
The transcript of the Ukraine phone call rendered what the whistleblower had to say moot.
The Trump “impeachment inquiry” is in full swing, and we now know definitively why the Democrats decided against voting for an actual impeachment inquiry: It might have booted the kangaroos out of the courtroom.
Instead, the only person booted out of the hearings, run by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, was Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, presumably because, as a congressman who’s not a member of the Intelligence Committee, he tried to crash the testimony of former national security official Fiona Hill.
Of course, there’s no ability for Republicans to cross-examine witnesses or to subpoena their own, as there would be in an actual impeachment inquiry, which is kind of the point.
“This process is a joke, and the consequences are huge,” New York GOP Rep. Lee Zeldin told The Associated Press.
Well, the good news is that the joke could be one punchline shorter, since an anticipated witness may not need to testify, according to Schiff.
The bad news is that the witness is, um, the whistleblower who started this whole thing.
We can now just rely on the transcript of the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that sparked the Democrats’ impeachment efforts. You know, the transcript Democrats claimed we couldn’t trust.
In an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Schiff said that because there is a second whistleblower, a call transcript and a need to protect the whistleblower’s anonymous status, the Intelligence Committee may not call the original whistleblower after all.
“Well, our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected,” Schiff said.
“Indeed, now there’s more than one whistleblower, that they are protected. And given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that.
“We do want to make sure that we identify other evidence that is pertinent to the withholding of the military support, the effort to cover this up by hiding this in a classified computer system. We want to make sure that we uncover the full details about the conditionality of either the military aid or that meeting with Ukraine’s president,” he continued.
“It may not be necessary to take steps that might reveal the whistleblower’s identity to do that. And we’re going to make sure we protect that whistleblower.”