House Republicans Demand Schiff Releases 'Whistleblower' for Questioning
GOP members request Adam Schiff brings the 'whistleblower' forward
Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee are demanding that Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) brings forward his anti-Trump "whistleblower" for questioning.
GOP committee members have written a letter to Schiff requesting that the anonymous person who made the August 12 complaint, prompting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, is brought forward.
A copy of the letter, that was sent to Schiff on Wednesday, was obtained by The Daily Wire.
In the letter, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Devin Nunes (R-CA), and Michael McCaul (R-TX) ask why Schiff changed his mind on calling the whistleblower to testify.
“We are surprised by your announcement that the Committees will not receive testimony from the anonymous intelligence community employee whose complaint initiated the so-called impeachment inquiry,” the lawmakers wrote.
“You had earlier committed that the employee would provide ‘unfiltered’ testimony ‘very soon,’ only to reverse course following revelations that the employee had a bias against President Donald Trump and that you had received a secret, early account of the allegations.”
“As the so-called impeachment inquiry gathers information that contradicts the employee’s allegations, we ask that you arrange for the Committees to receive public testimony from the employee and all individuals he or she relied upon in formulating the complaint,” the congressmen added, according to the Daily Wire.
The three Republicans then list a number of complaints the whistleblower made:
- That President Trump “sought to pressure” Ukrainian President [Volodymyr] Zelensky “to take actions to help the President’s 2020 bid,”
- That Ambassador Kurt Volker and Ambassador Gordon Sondland were sent to Ukraine to “provide advice … about how to 'navigate' the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelensky”
- That Ambassador Volker and Ambassador Sondland had “spoken with Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani in an attempt to “contain the damage” to U.S. national security”
- That a meeting or phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky “would depend on whether Zelensky showed willingness to 'play ball' on investigations"; and
- That President Trump “instructed Vice President [Mike] Pence to cancel his planned travel to Ukraine to attend President Zelensky’s inauguration.”
“Since then, the Committees have obtained information that contradicts the employee’s assertions,” the congressmen wrote.
“The transcript of President Trump’s phone call with President ‘Zelensky, which President Trump declassified and released the day after Speaker Pelosi’s announcement, contains no reference to the 2020 presidential election.
"President Zelensky has said publicly and repeatedly that he felt no pressure and there were no conditions imposed by President Trump.
"In addition, several witnesses have offered closed-door testimony in this so-called impeachment inquiry that rebuts the central assertion of the anonymous employee’s complaint, including the specific allegations listed above.”
The congressmen insisted that in light of these inconsistencies, Schiff should make available the testimony of the whistleblower and all the people he or she spoke to in order to write the complaint.
The congressmen then seemingly took a page from House Democrats by concluding in their letter: “Your failure to arrange for the Committees to receive this testimony shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.”
In the House Democrats’ letters demanding Secretary of State Mike Pompeo submits to questioning, the chairmen of several committees wrote that Pompeo’s “failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.”
Of course, such a notion was absurd, as Pompeo said in a response letter.
“There is no legal basis for such a threat,” Pompeo wrote.
“Given the serious substantive and procedural deficiencies in the Committee’s requests, including the Committee’s apparent effort to circumvent Executive Branch constitutional interests in having Department counsel present at any depositions, the Committee’s assertion lacks any recognized legal basis.
"I urge you to exercise restraint in making such unfounded statements in the future.”