democratic staff the of the house intelligence committee before he filed his report. shouldn t that be questioned by both democrats and republicans? let me clear up the issues about, you know, contact with the staff. first, the chairman has never met the whistleblower, does not know the whistleblower s identity and did not know what the complaint was going to say. when the staff received the complaint which happens often, our staff receive a lot of whistleblower complaints they directed the whistleblower to proper channels which the whistleblower went through. if the whistleblower had new evidence that has not been corroborated or implicated, i would agree to your first point, that the whistleblower would be relevant. but it seems this is just a punitive attempt by the president and republicans to go after somebody they believe is an enemy. chris: finally, congressman, you have made a number of statements over the last few weeks, ever since this story broke, about your feelings a
democratic staff the of the house intelligence committee before he filed his report. shouldn t that be questioned by both democrats and republicans? let me clear up the issues about, you know, contact with the staff. first, the chairman has never met the whistleblower, does not know the whistleblower s identity and did not know what the complaint was going to say. when the staff received the complaint which happens often, our staff receive a lot of whistleblower complaints they directed the whistleblower to proper channels which the whistleblower went through. if the whistleblower had new evidence that has not been corroborated or implicated, i would agree to your first point, that the whistleblower would be relevant. but it seems this is just a punitive attempt by the president and republicans to go after somebody they believe is an enemy. chris: finally, congressman, you have made a number of statements over the last few weeks, ever since this story broke, about your feelings a
democratic staff the of the house intelligence committee before he filed his report. shouldn t that be questioned by both democrats and republicans? let me clear up the issues about, you know, contact with the staff. first, the chairman has never met the whistleblower, does not know the whistleblower s identity and did not know what the complaint was going to say. when the staff received the complaint which happens often, our staff receive a lot of whistleblower complaints they directed the whistleblower to proper channels which the whistleblower went through. if the whistleblower had new evidence that has not been corroborated or implicated, i would agree to your first point, that the whistleblower would be relevant. but it seems this is just a punitive attempt by the president and republicans to go after somebody they believe is an enemy. chris: finally, congressman, you have made a number of statements over the last few weeks, ever since this story broke, about your feelings a
clarify? ly have to leave it to the legal team. they re the only ones who can speak on behalf of the clients that they are representing that have brought forth these claims. okay. let s talk about the congressional oversight, it is blocking both witnesses and docume documents even those under subpoena. it appears the democrat s only strategy is to fight that in the courts. you and i know it could take weeks and months. how and when is this involved? i think it has become a question for house democrats. do they view this as one all encompassing obstruction or impeding the articles of impeachment and move forward with the evidence they have. they already have a decent amount of information between the whistleblower complaints. the text messages from ambassador volker. they seemingly have enough to
further evidence of obstruction on the part of the white house and the president. here is the white house letter, by the way. a portion of it to nancy pelosi. your highly partisan threatens grave and lasting damage to our democratic institutions, our system of free elections and the american people. i hear you backing that letter up, congressman saying the white house made good points. nancy pelosi responded to the white house with this. this letter is manifestly wrong and simply another unlawful attempt to hide the facts of the trump administration s brazen efforts to pressure foreign powers to intervene in the 2020 elections. democrats say they can make the case there is obstruction and this is further evidence of that. why is she obstructing a vote on an impeachment inquiry and why can t we hear from adam schiff? that to me is obstruction what he knew and when about the whole whistleblower complaints. it can go back and forth. there is a precedent and