Thankfully, judges have disagreed thus far.

The testimony of the other witnesses not only corroborate the whistle blower, they add to it.
We could have even more information if the WH would let staff testify.If some of the sources of the WB are, in fact, those witnesses, then it kind of makes sense that they would corroborate the WB, doesn’t it?
Remnds me when Steeles conversations to the media were used to corroborate Steele.
Is that what you believe has happened here so far? How many have testified to this so far? 9? 10?
Some with very reputable careers at stake.

Impeachment isn’t a game. If your WB can’t stand up to questioning and you have to limit testimony to a select few to hold your narrative, that to me is a road you don’t want to go down.
If the WB lied the so did everyone else who testified.
I suggest we find out exactly all we can about what happened here. I’m not prejudging, though of course I have my opinion about the “strength” of the case.
[quote=“kingarthur65, post:1359, topic:218708, full:true”]

kingarthur65:
DougBH:
Nor should they. If there was legitimate reason to investigate, then that certainly has an effect on whether the investigation was a bad thing or a good thing.
I see you believe in the “Absolute Immunity” theory that the DOJ has been making on behalf of the President. The President can not even be investigated.
?..I do?
I had to circle back to this.
Are you aware of the legal theory that the DOJ has been pushing about Absolute Immunity for the President?
I want to make sure you understand what you are agreeing with. The argument is that the President can not even be investigated. Judges have been incredulous about this argument up to now. This argument isn’t over and they will have to defend it, maybe even use it in litigation in the near future.
Do I understand that you support this theory?
And Graham said it’s DOA the second it reaches the senate if he doesn’t testify.
Well, that’s certainly one senator’s opinion.

And Graham said it’s DOA the second it reaches the senate if he doesn’t testify.
Doesn’t Senator Graham know as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Senate can call the whistleblower to testify as part of the impeachment trial in the Senate?
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

If it is publicly known that this person is the whistle blower and there is nothing wrong with naming this person, why haven’t any of the talking heads done so?
Moral Grandstanding
Implying the Deplorables would harm him
Trump would have Putin send poison
Sell more subscriptions
More kabuki drama
Schiff - media collusion
Just your daily reminder that the WB report has been shown to be correct.
It amuses me people want the whistleblower to testify but have no problem with Trump not doing.

It amuses me people want the whistleblower to testify but have no problem with Trump not doing.
The urge for a public flogging is strong.

Tommy-Englander:
It amuses me people want the whistleblower to testify but have no problem with Trump not doing.
The urge for a public flogging is strong.
You’re not wrong.
Look at the sour faces on the bottom image…THAT is hilarious.

Just your daily reminder that the WB report has been shown to be correct.
Eric is not a WB.
They will crawl over broken glass naked to prevent their spy from being questioned in public.
I hope the Senate does it.

It amuses me people want the whistleblower to testify but have no problem with Trump not doing.
The President does not report to Congress.
Eric is not a whistle blower.
You seem to be saying Presidential immunity is a myth that will be destroyed by a carefully chosen judge at a time of your choosing.
Shop carefully.
Sure. He is saying that if the Congress refuses to perform its end of the proper process they leave the Senate with a mess that he will clean up.
What is Eric then?