Personally and I know I don’t count but I would like to see a subpoena issued for the “whistleblower” and everything put on hold - shut it all down - until he shows up as a witness for the defense! Why wouldn’t that have been done anyway? I might even settle for one of the defense attorneys SPEAKING HIS NAME in the trial!!! THAT might shut it all down!
Gads - we have to have some fun with this. Anyone watching what’s going on has to be nuts. I follow everything every day every year but this is more than I can take. It would be like watching the same movie 12 hours straight...and starting over on the same movie the next day.
There's only one small problem with that: Who is the "whistleblower?"
Before you say "Eric Ciaramella," remember that in a legal proceeding, there is a huge danger in making assumptions about facts that are not established in the record of the proceedings at hand. And to the best of my knowledge, this so-called "whistleblower" has not been publicly identified anywhere except in media accounts -- many of them from half-baked conservative news websites that peddle fake news as badly as CNN does.
Before calling the "whistleblower," the defense team must first establish who exactly he is. That means they must first get their hands on all the records related to this person and his dealings with Schiff's staff. Personally, I suspect that either their is NO whistleblower, or there may be at least a half-dozen people who provided information to Schiff's staff in a way that they might be considered "whistleblowers" of one kind or another.