Also during that “60 Minutes” interview we just told you about, Rep. Adam Schiff said the House Intelligence Committee “already has an agreement with the whistleblower” and “that he will testify”:
Scott Pelley: Do you expect the testimony of the whistleblower?
Adam Schiff: Absolutely.
Scott Pelley: Your committee already has an agreement with the whistleblower that he will testify?
Adam Schiff: We have an agreement that he or she will testify, yes.
— Laura Walker ??? ??????? (@LauraWalkerKC) September 30, 2019
Well, shortly after the interview aired, the whistleblower’s lawyer released a statement contradicted what Rep. Schiff told Scott Pelley:
Document Update: Please go here to see correspondence that has been recently uploaded. Thank you.https://t.co/smayEkwMyr
— Andrew P. Bakaj (@AndrewBakaj) September 30, 2019
Rep. Schiff gave the impression that the interview was a done deal, but “While discussions continue to occur to coordinate and finalize logistics, no date/time has yet been set” makes it much less certain:
And Mark Zaid tweeted earlier in the day that “whistleblower testimony” might not mean “testimony.” They’re referring to “congressional contact generally,” whatever that means:
I repeat: "testimony" is generic term. I am referring to congressional contact generally. https://t.co/boa0TnDIck
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) September 29, 2019
$50,000 bounty offered by Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman for the identity of the whistleblower cited as one reason for federal protection https://t.co/LcXHtn3aM1
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 30, 2019
To change your comments display name, click here.