Sheila Jackson Lee disagrees with Schiff on whistleblower: 'It is important for us to hear' the testimony
by Kerry Picket
October 16, 2019 01:37 PM
Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member on the House Judiciary Committee, said the Ukraine whistleblower should testify in the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump; a notable dissent from the investigation's quarterback, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.
“The document of the whistleblower was an indicting document. The transcript was an indicting document. I do believe it is important for us to hear from the whistleblower,” Jackson Lee told reporters Wednesday following a weekly caucus meeting. “If you were in a court of law you would hold up a piece of paper that was evidence, but your witness would be able to confirm or deny the evidence having firsthand knowledge. That is a powerful addition to any truthful, deliberate investigation that may ultimately result in articles of impeachment.”
Jackson Lee said she did not want to “prejudge” how the first whistleblower should provide his testimony. “I'm going to say that the chairpersons are crafting," she said. "However, it should be done if it is going to occur.”
The House Judiciary Committee previously spearheaded a six-committee impeachment investigation into Trump, until the investigation became more focused on a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. At the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Intelligence Committee took over the reigns of the impeachment investigation.
The call came to light after a whistleblower, who formerly worked at the National Security Council and returned to the CIA, filed a complaint with the Intelligence Community inspector general only after meeting with the House Intelligence staffers on Schiff’s staff. Schiff and the whistleblower’s lawyer, Mark Zaid, have insisted on keeping the whistleblower’s identity concealed. In recent days, Schiff has downplayed the importance of the anonymous informant’s testimony.
“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,” Schiff told CBS News last Sunday. “We have the best evidence of that.”
Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member on the House Judiciary Committee, said the Ukraine whistleblower should testify in the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump; a notable dissent from the investigation's quarterback, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.
“The document of the whistleblower was an indicting document. The transcript was an indicting document. I do believe it is important for us to hear from the whistleblower,” Jackson Lee told reporters Wednesday following a weekly caucus meeting. “If you were in a court of law you would hold up a piece of paper that was evidence, but your witness would be able to confirm or deny the evidence having firsthand knowledge. That is a powerful addition to any truthful, deliberate investigation that may ultimately result in articles of impeachment.”
Jackson Lee said she did not want to “prejudge” how the first whistleblower should provide his testimony. “I'm going to say that the chairpersons are crafting," she said. "However, it should be done if it is going to occur.”
The House Judiciary Committee previously spearheaded a six-committee impeachment investigation into Trump, until the investigation became more focused on a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. At the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Intelligence Committee took over the reigns of the impeachment investigation.
The call came to light after a whistleblower, who formerly worked at the National Security Council and returned to the CIA, filed a complaint with the Intelligence Community inspector general only after meeting with the House Intelligence staffers on Schiff’s staff. Schiff and the whistleblower’s lawyer, Mark Zaid, have insisted on keeping the whistleblower’s identity concealed. In recent days, Schiff has downplayed the importance of the anonymous informant’s testimony.
“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,” Schiff told CBS News last Sunday. “We have the best evidence of that.”
No comments:
Post a Comment