would i stop it? i haven t done anything wrong. so that slow-roll glacier move that you said the democrats might be doing then suddenly get stymied. like, oh, wait, we meet it s going to go on? we actually have to do this now? emily: i think it was part of the argument, 35 days into this all of the sudden we are receiving some structure. it did go into the g.o.p. argument, why did this happen in the beginning? too little, too late. harris: representative eric swalwell was vocal on this yesterday. this is how it kind of went. okay. emily: i wanted to make the point that, as a federal attorney tom knows this, i ve handed out for the papers. it involved whether or not it happens is colossal and wasteful. when she refers around terms like, we are going to threaten this, all that does is illustrate yet again as a constituent that my legislators cannot legislate and focus on impeachment at the same time.
coming from. emily: if this moved any faster than glacial, i think we would all be pleasantly surprised. but i personally don t have any faith that it will. if i could just point out what i see is problematic in these new rules, we know that the house intelligence committee essentially has all the muscle, right? when it comes to the judiciary committee, jerry nadler not only has the ability to deny the request for witnesses and attorneys, but also impose when he feels is appropriate remedies if he feels the president has stonewalled in any of these six investigations. so i want to make sure viewers understand he is very curbed and constrained essentially before a headmaster that could essentially slap his hand with a ruler at any point. harris: the democrat vision on all of this, you guys could misstep overreaching. that is something we have seen in your political party time and time again. oh, my goodness, russia collusion! my goodness, got to wait for the bob mueller report to c
i think they are complicit in working with the whistleblower to come forward with this complaint and start this entire impeachment inquiry. i think that s why adam schiff is so protective of the whistleblower, because he is concerned about the truth that will come out if we get access to him. melissa: leslie, what do you think? leslie: i don t feel that we had all, i disagree. i think protection of the whistleblower instantly because they feel the individual, perhaps family members, would be threatened because of the divisiveness and because of the vitriolic nature of our society right now. especially along political lines. in addition to that, democrats have even said, we don t even need the whistleblower at this point, necessarily. when you have the testimony like we are having now and more and more people are coming forward that are pretty much echoing the sentiment of the original concern of this whistleblower, you may not need the whistleblower. and who that person s may n
you keep their identity secret, precisely because revealing their identity would defeat the whole purpose of the whistleblower act. harris: republicans say they didn t ask for the identity of this person. democrats say they did, and there ensued that argument that melissa was talking about. the comes out in testimony, is that different from it leaking? and oh, by the way, who thinks it would not leak? tom: i agree with that point. yes, that s inherent in the nature of the process. if you are discussing harris: so even if they had come it would be okay? tom: it would. in other words, if people aren t simply disclosing it for the sake of disclosing it, but happens to come out or be revealed or people connect the dots by way of public testimony, that would be a violation of the law. melissa: they went to the subject s most public enemy first, adam schiff, before they went to the ig. so i don t know on the process front. that s an odd person to go to first with the information.
that he struggled to identify exactly where, and then what exactly was omitted? what was mischaracterized? we need that specificity for the average american to understand what s going on. at this point we are simply being led along without knowing the truth. leslie: my understanding from the allegation is that the allegation as there are specifi. whether or not the ukrainian president about burisma as a corporation, and the president talking about former vice president joe biden when he was vice president, having a recorded call. harris: but on corruption. melissa: i think she means on the other front. when he said that and it didn t go in, where did you take it from there? i would need we are casting aspersions on the people who were sitting there taking down that call, that is their job and we have talked to other people who have done that. how they are trained, that sort of thing. if they left stuff out, i would want to know why. there would be a trailer record