thunk thunk thunk.... you don't think think think, do ya?
the whistleblower doesn't even need to testify any more any ways. everything he/she has whistled about has been verified & corroborated by multiple first person witness'.
neener neener.
This is interesting.
Verified how? By the testimony of people giving their opinion? Have we done away with the right to face our accusers? The Whistleblower is the impetus and the main accuser of alleged crimes.
The House doesn't need this whistleblower to impeach, but they will need this person for the trial.
Desire to testify or not, the whistleblower will be required to testify in the Senate.
' Verified how? '
i already told you. the WB
gave names of those with first hand knowledge that approached him/her with disturbing info. the IG then interviewed them & they corroborated what was in the original complaint.
so what that the WB - whose identity is concealed thru legal protocol - was the impetus? if i was an informant & gave info that a DA followed up on & it turned out to be credible... the informant is no longer necessary & they themself do not show up in court.
lol, nice try though. the (R)s are trying to put someone - protected by law - in danger all because they wanna stay warm in donny's colon. ya, good luck with that.
Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation
Given that the IG corroborated information from the transcript of the phone call, a transcript we all have seen, what does that tell you about verified? Again, evidence of wrongdoing is not opinions given by people with concerns. Evidence is a clear understanding of the law, its context, and the hard evidence of behavior that violates that law.
We have not seen anything like that from the IG or the whistleblower.
In fact, given the documented timelines regarding the allegations and the statements by "Involved' parties, we see that the 'concerns' don't rise to the level of criminal conduct.