:: I think that under oath and threat of perjury that Eric Ciaramella should be a witness in the impeachment trial. ::
All it takes is for Cipollini[sp?] to ask Schiff, “Congressman Schiff, have you ever spoken with or had any contact -either professional or social- with Mr. Eric Ciaramella?”
It can be asked at any time during the House arguments on the First article. Ciaramella, likely the whistleblower, has no statutory protection (whistleblower protection act) from being identified. That is simply made-up by Schiff.
Additionally, if using the above phrasing, Ciaramella is not identified as a “whistleblower” per se, but as a person of interest in the impeachment. This then opens the possibility of Ciaramella being called as a material witness. Remember, Jim Jordan is on the back-bench team and knows the (classified and unreleased) testimony of Atkinson.
I hope someone does it today...early.
I'd love to see Schiffs reaction.
If witnesses are called - I agree! This guy is a weasel who needs to be dragged in to the light. A Durham indictment would be nice too. This guy has so abused his civil servant position -- the Hatch Act, among others. He has conspired to overthrow a duly constituted election.