Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The hero of Team Hondo
RaceBannon
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,693 
in Tug Tavern
https://foxnews.com/opinion/schiff-whistleblower-claims-trump-impeachment-jason-chaffetz
Americans had a front-row seat for Day One of impeachment inquiry hearings in the House on Wednesday. But missing from the testimony on Capitol Hill was the “witness” who started it all. Six grueling hours of testimony by two hearsay witnesses shed little light on the allegations against President Trump.
Neither George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe nor William Taylor, the charge d’affaires in Kiev had firsthand information and both clearly had an ax to grind over their differences with the president on foreign policy.
More interesting than their testimony was the complete whitewashing of any reference to the original whistleblower, whose second-hand allegations so deeply concerned House Democrats that they opened an official impeachment inquiry – a process they had three times explicitly rejected in previous House votes.
In the first day of testimony, there was barely any mention of the original witness or the transcript of the call that lies at the center of the allegations.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff went to great lengths to suppress any reference to the witness during the first day of testimony, even going so far as to claim (laughably) that he doesn't know who the witness is.
Let’s think about that for a moment. We know that the whistleblower met with Schiff’s STAFF. Are we supposed to believe that the Congressman stepped out of the office when he arrived or hid in another room when the whistleblower meeting took place?
Remember, this is the same Schiff whose promises of "ample evidence of collusion in plain sight" were repudiated by the final Mueller Report. He is hardly a beacon of credibility, but the notion that he doesn't know the identity of a whistleblower so many in Washington can already identify by name is laughable.
He Who Must Not Be Named is not expected to testify at all. That's totally unacceptable.
Americans had a front-row seat for Day One of impeachment inquiry hearings in the House on Wednesday. But missing from the testimony on Capitol Hill was the “witness” who started it all. Six grueling hours of testimony by two hearsay witnesses shed little light on the allegations against President Trump.
Neither George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe nor William Taylor, the charge d’affaires in Kiev had firsthand information and both clearly had an ax to grind over their differences with the president on foreign policy.
More interesting than their testimony was the complete whitewashing of any reference to the original whistleblower, whose second-hand allegations so deeply concerned House Democrats that they opened an official impeachment inquiry – a process they had three times explicitly rejected in previous House votes.
In the first day of testimony, there was barely any mention of the original witness or the transcript of the call that lies at the center of the allegations.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff went to great lengths to suppress any reference to the witness during the first day of testimony, even going so far as to claim (laughably) that he doesn't know who the witness is.
Let’s think about that for a moment. We know that the whistleblower met with Schiff’s STAFF. Are we supposed to believe that the Congressman stepped out of the office when he arrived or hid in another room when the whistleblower meeting took place?
Remember, this is the same Schiff whose promises of "ample evidence of collusion in plain sight" were repudiated by the final Mueller Report. He is hardly a beacon of credibility, but the notion that he doesn't know the identity of a whistleblower so many in Washington can already identify by name is laughable.
He Who Must Not Be Named is not expected to testify at all. That's totally unacceptable.